Talk:BP/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about BP. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Martin and Rangoon -- more sources on BP's operating culture with respect to risk management. I am sorry to say but they are pretty much of one voice -- the company was too focused on cost cutting to increase profit and underinvested in people and equipment needed to effectively understand and manage risk. Note these are all business-oriented sources, not ones from environmental groups. http://www.iveybusinessjournal.com/topics/leadership/bp-and-public-issues-mismanagement#.UVfGgqusaYs http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2011/01/24/bp-an-accident-waiting-to-happen/ http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470950900.html

On the mildly positive side, is a very detailed report on the plan that was put in place for BP to clean up its act in its refinery operations, after the Texas explosion - makes clear (somewhat) the progress they have made and how much further they have to go.. wish it would have been more clear about $ put into those efforts: http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/sustainability/safety/STAGING/local_assets/downloads_pdfs/fifth_annual_report.pdf

Anyway, like I said above, sometimes the picture is just not pretty. Jytdog (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

All the sources are very focused on Deepwater rather than BP's overall safety record worldwide. However rather than simply pasting links on this talk page it would be far more useful if you could propose how these will be used in the text. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I hear you that it would be useful to propose text. I very much like the section you started above and content could be generated from them to expand that. I mostly went to find them in response to your call for "balance", and proposed them to see if they would fly before starting to generate content from them. I do not agree - at all - that they are "about" DWH. They were definitely prompted by it, as part of a string of industrial accidents, but each of them goes back and looks at how we got here - at the history of BP's safety culture. Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

AND - the "mildly positive" report I mentioned above is not about DWH at all -- it would be useful if you actually looked at them before you commented about what they "all" say. Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

After any major disaster there will always be a rash of journalists showing that it was all an accident waiting to happen that anyone other than the management at the time could have spotted and prevented. Whatever the failings of the companies involved there was a high degree of misfortune involved in the DWH explosion. If you have not looked at the Stanford video, I suggest that you do. It us not very exciting journalism but is tells us exactly what actually happened. It was not some bit of cheap, badly-maintained, rusty old pipe that broke because nobody cared about it, which is the impression that this article gives, but a series of unexpected events and decisions which turned out to be the wrong ones.

The moon landings were politically motivated and highly risky. As it happened, fortune favoured the brave and history was made. Years later, after the Challenger disaster The Rogers Commission found NASA's organizational culture and decision-making processes had been key contributing factors to the accident, NASA managers had known about a potentially catastrophic flaw in the O-rings since 1977 but failed to address it properly, and disregarded warnings from engineers about the dangers of launching posed by the low temperatures. These things need to be said but not overblown. An analysis of NASA during the Apollo missions would probably have found a higher risk-taking culture, but they got away with it.

Was BP's culture, management, and safety record significantly worse that other major oil companies at the time? That is the question we should be trying to answer in WP. It is not as easy as finding some articles that say BP were bad, we need to find independent comparative reports that are no swayed by who had the worst luck but who have reported on and compared what the found in all companies at the time. If we cannot find such reports we must be very careful of implying that guesses of what the results of such reports would have ben are actual facts. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Martin, the sources that I brought all go into that. The Ivey is most explicit: "An argument could be made that a disaster like the Deepwater explosion and resulting spill could happen to any oil company, and that BP was simply unlucky. This feeling was evident when, according to the New York Times, Tony Hayward quipped to senior BP executives, “What the hell did we do to deserve this?”1 There is some truth to the argument that BP was the victim of the sort of bad luck that could have hit any oil company; drilling for oil is risky and dangerous to be sure. However, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that more than bad luck was involved." and goes on to say that by industry standards, BP's risk management was badly run -- policies were bad, not used well, and were underfunded in all the efforts to cut costs to boost the bottom line. While I agree that a reliable source that compared BP's policies, execution of those policies, and investment in risk management and infrastructure would be awesome to find and use, I have not been able to find one. If you can find a source that does that, please bring it. If you cannot, it would probably be most productive to let that go. What we can rely on, are industry experts, who know what industry standards are, and make judgements based on their knowledge, and discuss that in reliable sources. Things like this, from the Fortune article: "'They just did safety wrong,' says Nancy Leveson, an industrial safety expert at MIT who served on a panel that investigated BP's safety practices after its refinery explosion; she has since taught safety classes to BP executives and also advised the presidential panel that investigated the Deepwater Horizon disaster. 'They were producing a lot of standards,' she says, 'but many were not very good, and many were irrelevant.' Leveson says that she was so troubled by BP's approach that in January 2010 she told colleagues, 'They are an accident waiting to happen.'" Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Do we really need to get into this kind of discussion? I think that we have our hands full parsing the COI contributions. Coretheapple (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

That depends on whether anyone is intending to add media reports or links to them to the article. If no on has that intention, no problem, let us move on; if they do, we need to discuss it to reach a consensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Core, from my perspective, "this kind of discussion" is the ongoing work of wikipedia. I would say, put your energy, where you care to put it. To me the COI discussion is a non-issue and I am not participating in it. 22:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed repeatedly but Martin is never satisfied with the extensive work that other editors have put into providing the information. See for example (one of many) Archive # 6 "Safety record overview". Binksternet has replied to Martin in that section. One of the reasons that this article has been so exhausting is that the very same issues are repeated over and over again and never resolved to the satisfaction of certain editors. Also see, for example, Rangoons previous presentation in that section. Gandydancer (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter how much work is put in by editors, it matters what reliable sources say. If we want to say something along the lines that US media have criticised BP for what they say is its bad safety record, that is fine, we have the sources to support it. If, on the other hand, we want to say that BP has a bad safety record then we need better sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Not if they meet the standards for reliable sources, your personal opinion notwithstanding. Coretheapple (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Th sources need to be reliable sources for the statement we make in WP. The sources given above would be fine for us to say, 'US media have criticised BP for what they say is its bad safety record', but there are not, for the reasons given above, acceptable for us to say, 'BP has a bad safety record'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a distinction if media refers to reliable and veritable original source or if it publishes opinion of the editor/journalist. Beagel (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The opinion of a journalist shooting from the hip is of limited usefulness, but an investigative report is another matter. Coretheapple (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Was BP's culture, management, and safety record significantly worse that other major oil company? That is the question we should be trying to answer in WP' I disagree. The question we editors should be asking ourselves is this: Is this an on-line encyclopedic article about the company BP or is this an Annual Report to the Stockholders written by the company BP. Every editor should ask themselves "How am I helping or hurting the reader". BP had a marginal bad safety record, one of if not thee worst in a "safety-record challenged" industry. If our reader didnt know that coming into WP to read the article, they should know that when they leave. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Buster, you seem to take the statement, 'BP had a bad safety record' as a fact. How do you know this? Is it from media reports following the DWH disaster or have you found an independent reliable source that has actually shown that BP's safety record is worse than that of other oil companies? If you have such a source then please tell us what it is. If we have a suitable source actually showing that BP's record is significantly worse that the other supermajors then, of course, we should say that in the article. What is your source? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I've yet to see a single source state with authority that BP has or at any time has had a worse safety record than its peers across its global operations and the full range of its activities. There were undoubtedly some issues in the US post-2000 - connected in no small part to the acquistion of Amoco, which failed to invest in its asset base and had a lax culture - however the US is only one third of BP's operations, and even within the US the safety issues related to a number of quite specific parts of BP's operations, specifically some pipelines, refineries and drilling activities (the former two were closely related to underinvestment in the asset base, the latter to issues regarding placing too much faith in American contractors such as Halliburton). I haven't seen a single source state that BP's service stations in the US had a safety issue, or its tankers, or its producing wells. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to ask again: are we discussing the article? This is not supposed to be a discussion board on BP. Coretheapple (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Core, you are somewhat right in that but this is trying to get at how to frame the content on industrial accidents and safety, and I think we are making some progress. But yes we should be trying to keep this relevant to specific content as much as we can.Jytdog (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Rangoon, I have started working on an industrial accident/safety section starting with your draft way up above, and I have exactly been thinking about breaking out safety as per BP's operational groups as described on its website -- upstream (eg drilling), downstream (refining and gas stations, etc), and alternative energy. And also discussing things worldwide (in searching for sources I found some reports of troubles in North Sea and Scotland from the late 1990s early 2000s but otherwise the web is remarkably quiet on other issues). The sense I am gathering is as you say - that their US operations acquired from Amoco started from a bad base - but I would add what seems to be the consensus, that these issues were exacerbated and went to crisis b/c of BP's uninderinvestment and lax management. But I am curious -- you say the thing about Amoco with authority -- what is your source for that? Thx Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The point about Amoco I remember reading in one of the sources which I found for a discussion on this page a while ago. I will try and find it but it may take a while. However Amoco was well known to be accident prone [1], Amoco Cadiz oil spill, [2], [3].Rangoon11 (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

BP's acquisition of Amoco was typical of BP at that time, with BP looking to take as much money as possible out of an operation that desperately needed an influx of cash. Amoco was wrung out, but BP was to wring them further. The culture of cost-cutting was BP's culture instituted by CEO Browne, as reported by many investigators. Binksternet (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rangoon. That source will be super important if we are going to make the degraded infrastructure from Amoco part of the US story. I will look too. Binkster, if there is a reliable source that talks about the bad infrastructure, then the content should mention as it would indeed be part -- part -- of the story. Of course BP is responsible for whatever it owns, and as I wrote above it seems that the series of industrial accidents may indeed be a combination of bad acquired infrastructure and BP's cost-cutting choices and lack of management. I think this is as far as this discussion can go until we have content with sources to work on. Jytdog (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

btw, Rangoon, the Frontline video makes it clear that the Texas refinery was already outdated and nasty (e.g. neglected) when BP bought it; Frontline makes a ~somewhat~ similar point about the Alaska infrastucture - the story Frontline tells about Alaska, is that the infrastructure was originally built to last for 20 years, which at the time was as long as people thought they would be drilling in Alaska. I need to check the timing on when it was built and when BP bought Amoco. Depending on those dates it might be hard to make Amoco's neglect part of the story wrt Alaska. (but again, for Binkster's sake - once BP bought all these assets the onus was completely on BP to manage them well)Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Much of what is being discussed here is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. If we are going to say or imply in the article that BP has a worse safety record than its peers then we need to find a independent quality reliable source which actually says that. If we cannot find one which actually says that than we must not say it in the article. Putting together bits and pieces from post-disaster news videos and news reports to form a view on the company as a whole is not acceptable for WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I think a better description would be not acceptable for BP rather than WP. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look at the WP two policy links that I give. I do not care whether BP like it or not but I do care what we write in WP. It must be based on what Reliable sources actually say. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Martin, you have steadfastly turned your back on the many independent sources discussing how BP's North American operations were many times worse than other North American operators. Repeatedly I have brought forward "BP's Dismal Safety Record" which discusses an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) paper which documents 760 of BP's "egregious, willful" safety violations, as compared to a total of 19 such violations by the other four operators. The North American operations cannot be considered as a special case for BP, apart from BP's other operations; they must be combined with other operations around the globe. A neutral statement about BP's total global safety cannot avoid discussing the infamously poor performance in North America. Binksternet (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

That's plain enough. It's not opinion but is based on reporting, and appears in a reliable source. Overall, it might be helpful if someone could please connect this discussion to text in the article that someone wants to change. Coretheapple (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, your source is a short post-disaster news article. A short quote, BP's safety violations far outstrip its fellow oil companies. According to the Center for Public Integrity, in the last three years, BP refineries in Ohio and Texas have accounted for 97 percent of the "egregious, willful" violations handed out by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), shows the level of competence and investigation that goes into what they say. They say, 'BP's safety violations far outstrip its fellow oil companies'. On what basis do they make this statement? On the basis of a report by an investigative journalism organization which quotes a section from an OSHA report based only on refineries in two US states. This is not even BP's North America operations is is a news report on a quote from a report about BP's refinery operations in two US states. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You guys are free to keep at this, but from my POV you are shadow boxing now. I advise that you wait for actual content to consider, or create some yourselves for consideration! This is my last comment in this section.Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I agree. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It's plain that BP has a terrible safety record. That apparently has been reported so frequently in reliable sources that it's really indisputable. I don't understand the point of this discussion at all, as it seems like tilting at windmills. The section header is correct: hindsight is a wonderful thing. Hindsight includes investigative reports and jury trials. It is how the world determines stuff. Coretheapple (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The Prudhoe Bay 2006–2007 section of the article as it's currently written does not accurately cover the main oil spill that occurred at Prudhoe Bay. Right now, it confuses minor leaks with the major oil spill in March 2006 and does not properly summarize the all of the details of the spill. I have written a new draft for this section, which now better explains that the main oil spill was the one in March 2006 and summarizes the events around this, including criticism of BP, the company's response to the spill and the legal ramifications. I have aimed for this to be a summary of the Prudhoe Bay oil spill article, with the focus on the major spill.

As well as clarifying the information currently in the article and adding the details on the March 2006 spill, I have removed one detail: the May 2007 leak in a separation plant. The source in the article for this does not actually mention the leak, but this USA Today article explains it was actually a leak from a water pipeline and did not have any environmental or safety impact.

The draft is in my user pages here: User:Arturo at BP/Prudhoe Bay

Please review and make any changes to the draft in my user pages, however, it would be best to keep discussion of the draft here so that it is easier to follow. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there Arturo and thanks for the notice to review your rewrite. Could you please help me understand the situation a little better. Is the trans-Alaska pipeline owned jointly by several oil companies, or how does that work? Did the spill happen on a 'smaller"(?) BP-owned pipeline that delivers oil from BP wells to the main line? Also, I see that BP had the spill in 2006 and said they'd be replacing all of their pipeline, then I see that in 2008 they had 16 miles replaced. What is the total amount of miles that needs to be replaced and have they made any more progress? Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gandydancer, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System is owned by Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, a consortium of oil companies including BP. The March 2006 spill in Prudhoe Bay was from a BP-owned pipeline that carries oil from BP's oilfield at Prudhoe Bay to the consortium-owned Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Does that help? Regarding the pipeline replacement, I am checking with others at BP to be certain, but I believe that the company planned to replace 26km of pipeline (as explained in this Calgary Herald article I used in the draft) and completed the replacement of this 26km by the end of 2008. I will let you know once I've heard back and if this point is confusing in the draft as it stands, I can update it. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I think I worked on this section at one time--I remember learning about "pigs"--but I had since forgotten. It is coming back to me now.

I think your new summary looks great! One thing, I see that our copy re the leaking antifreeze solution from some of the wells is not correct, however you did not even mention the leaking wells. Do you think it should be included? Gandydancer (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I have heard back from my colleague on our Alaska team, who confirms that the Calgary Herald article is correct: the company planned to replace 26km or 16mi of pipeline and completed it in 2008. I've updated the draft to reflect this. Regarding the well leaks, per the Guardian source in the article now, and this Associated Press article I found, the wells were leaking an insulating agent and were shut down to investigate. Similar to the water pipeline leak I mentioned above, there was not any safety or environmental impact, so I decided not to include it here. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done quite a bit of reading and am now much more knowledgeable. I think you're right about not including the well leaks here. I note that the main article could perhaps use a little work--do you think you should include it there? Gandydancer (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

For now, i've implemented Arturo's draft since there doesn't seem to be any issues with it. Discussion on moving the well leaks info should continue though. Silverseren^C 04:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Silverseren for adding the draft. Also, thanks for your review of the section, Gandydancer. To answer your question about the well leaks, I am honestly not sure if they should be included in the Prudhoe Bay oil spill article. While they were reported in the media alongside discussion of the March 2006 oil spill, they are not really directly related to it except for being in the same oilfield. I'm open to hearing other views, though. So far, I have limited my involvement on Wikipedia to this article, in part because Wikipedia is just one of many things I focus on in my role at BP, so working on one article is more manageable. However, I do intend to start looking at some other BP-related articles in due course, possibly including the Prudhoe Bay article. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Arturo. The Prudhoe Bay leak section has raised some new issues. As you know, I asked for an update (see above) and you responded that the rusted-out line had been replaced by 2008. I recently have come across more recent information that states that although the lines may have been replaced, BP did not fully comply with the agreement reached. According to a DOJ document last updated October 2012, "When BP XA did not fully comply with the terms of the corrective action, EES filed a complaint in March 2009 alleging violations of the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and the Pipeline Safety Act." Please see this information and the other information supplied as well. [4].

According to this 2010 Alaskan news article [5], "Corroded pipelines have since been replaced, but three years later the consequences of the spills linger, spreading from northern Alaska to the halls of justice hundreds of miles away in Anchorage." You said that you had heard back from your colleague on your Alaska team and I assume that s/he must have been aware of these updates. Did s/he not share them with you? If that is the case, it certainly is cause for concern and suggests, perhaps, a serious problem with suggestions that paid editors can properly represent the corporation that they are working for. Gandydancer (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I was not aware of this and will inquire about the 2009 complaint and 2011 consent decree from the link you provided. Nonetheless, I think you can agree the details in the article now are far more accurate than the original language in the Prudhoe Bay section, which had confused information about the events in 2006 and did not mention anything about the consequences of the March 2006 spill. Meanwhile, I am always willing to discuss and help clarify to the best of my ability. I appreciate your kind words in various discussions, and hope that you will not jump to the worst conclusions on matters like this. Thank you. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I would not go so far as to say that it is far more accurate and in light of the new information that I came across it is far from accurate.

Yes, you did mention that BP had replaced the pipeline, however it sounds like the other directives were ignored, both by BP and your rewrite:

From the Alaska Dispatch, May 17,2010: In fall 2007, BP pleaded guilty to violating the Clean Water Act and was hit with a $20 million fine and agreed to be placed on three years probation, with an option for early release if it demonstrated significant progress making improvements to its problem pipes and oversight programs. More than a year and half later, in March 2009, the feds went a step further and the Justice Department, acting on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency, sued BP for a string of violations in connection with the spills. [6]

And from the DOJ: When BP XA did not fully comply with the terms of the corrective action, EES filed a complaint in March 2009 alleging violations of the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and the Pipeline Safety Act. In July 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska entered a consent decree between the United States and BPXA resolving the government’s claims. Under the consent decree, BPXA paid a $25 million civil penalty, the largest per-barrel penalty at that time for an oil spill...

According to the Alaska Dispatch, "If every allegation in the complaint sticks at trial, BP could easily be liable for more than $30 million in fines: $22 million for the spills if a judge finds the company was "grossly negligent," at least $750,000 for numerous violations of the Clean Air and Water Acts, and as much as $7 million more for a slow response to federally-ordered pipeline fixes." Considering that the DOJ did fine them 25 million, it sounds like most of the charges pretty much stuck. Five million more than the 2007 fine and the largest per-barrel penalty at that time for an oil spill.

Arturo, you say, "I hope that you will not jump to the worst conclusions on matters like this". If I trust that you were not aware of this information I have to wonder how you can present a rewrite that was so poorly researched. It makes you look bad and it makes me look bad as well, since I approved of your rewrite. On the other hand, if the information was supplied to you and you assumed, like I, that it was complete, you are being deceived by BP and will have to deal with that. Considering that you said, "I have heard back from my colleague on our Alaska team, who confirms that the Calgary Herald article is correct: the company planned to replace 26km or 16mi of pipeline and completed it in 2008.", you'd think that he should have mentioned something like, "but oh, BTW, even though we replaced the pipe, the DOJ did find that we were not complying with their other directives and they ended up fining us $25 million more...". If he didn't share that with you, they are deceiving you. Gandydancer (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

As I've stated above, this is not something I was aware of but it seems that other editors were equally unaware (this information is not included in the main Prudhoe Bay oil spill article, for instance, which I looked to summarize with the draft I presented). The details in the section now are accurate, but it is possible additional information may need to be added, although I am still in the process of verifying. I will reply again when I have more information which should be in the next week. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi again Gandydancer, I have now heard back from those within BP who are more knowledgeable about these events. They clarified that there were both criminal charges and civil claims relating to the 2006 spills, which I think have become confused here primarily due to the Alaska Dispatch article that discusses both in a way that makes them appear interrelated. Here is the explanation of each, with secondary sources I have found that support the information:

Criminal charges and outcome

As reflected in the current section, in November 2007 BP Exploration was criminally convicted of environmental laws relating to the March 2006 spill. As part of that conviction, it was sentenced to serve three years of probation. See, Reuters, 29 November 2007 and the source you provided, Alaska Dispatch, 17 May 2010

After a spill at Lisburne, near to Prudhoe Bay, in November 2009, the U.S. alleged that BP Exploration had violated the terms of its probation. In late 2011, a probation hearing was held before Judge Beistline in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska. The judge found that BP Exploration did not violate probation. See Bloomberg, 27 December 2011 and UPI, 28 December 2011

Given that the judge found that BP Exploration did not violate the terms agreed in 2007, I believe this information should most probably not be added to the article.

Civil charges and outcomes

In early 2011, the U.S. brought a civil complaint alleging that the spills in 2006 violated various environmental laws. The complaint was settled with a consent decree, under which the court has continuing jurisdiction to enforce ongoing actions. Judge Sedwick of the United States District Court for the District of Alaska approved and entered the consent decree on July 13, 2011. The consent decree required BP Exploration to pay a $25 million civil penalty and undertake certain measures aimed at systematically improving operation and maintenance of specified pipelines, to be overseen by an independent monitor. See Anchorage Daily News, 3 May 2011, Forbes, 10 May 2011 and the USDoJ page you linked above.

The term of the consent decree is for a minimum of three years. When BP Exploration can demonstrate that it has satisfied all requirements under the consent decree, it may request that it be terminated.

Also, in 2012, the State of Alaska pursued a claim for damages against BP Exploration. In November 2012, the claim was resolved when BP Exploration was ordered to pay $255 million in damages, $66 million of which was to be paid by BP Plc., the rest by the other owners of BP Exploration (ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil and Chevron). See Bloomberg, 8 November 2012

As you have seen, the details as explained in the press tend to confuse civil and criminal matters, so I hope that this helps to clarify. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Just looking at the criminal proceedings and the article as it currently exists, I don't understand how this article got to the such a wretched state that neither the Justice Department motion or the court's ruling are mentioned in the article. Obviously this needs to be in the article, not in exhaustive detail to be sure, but certainly there in adequate detail. It's not every day that the Justice Department takes that kind of action, regardless of the ultimate outcome, which was favorable to BP. In addition to the finding BP not in breach, the judge lifted the probation entirely[7], and I see from Google that this was not a popular decision among environmentalists. This is all relevant, important and most certainly belongs in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It definitely belongs to the article but in the first place in belongs to the Prudhoe Bay oil spill article. Should we start to update that article at first and then summarize here? It was also interesting to learn that BP Plc owns only 27% in the BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc. while the stake of ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil is 36% both (in addition, Chevron has 1%). I just wonder why this information is not added in the ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil articles? Beagel (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

My bad, I misunderstand the Bloomberg's news. BP Exploration (Alaska) is a partner and operator of the Prudhoe Bay field, while other partners of the field (and not BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc.) are ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Chevron. However, it seems that they agreed to pay a part of the fine correspondingly to their stake in the Prudhoe Bay field. Beagel (talk) 08:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I think it should go in the article right away. This article gets over 3000 views a day while the split gets well under 100 a day. Perhaps editors will be able to rapidly come to a decision here with the recent addition of a few more editors, but in my experience with this article the argument could go on for quite some time before agreement is reached--just have a look at the archives to see what I mean. Gandydancer (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Pertinent varified vetted info should go into the article with reasonable speed. Regarding the other Oil Industry articles, it certainly is a valid observation but one that requires editor action. There is only so much that volunteer editors can do in their spare time. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't checked out the civil settlement, but at first blush it seems rather picayune compared to the criminal proceedings, which generated more coverage and controversy. Coretheapple (talk)15:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

@ Buster - If Wikipedia thinks it's OK for paid editors to furnish information and write copy for their corporation it is only fair that articles such as this one have a paid "green" editor that furnishes information and writes copy for the opposing viewpoint. Gandydancer (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

@ Gandy. I agree. I come to WP to have enjoyment and participate in something Grand. I certainly don't want to use up my free-time doing battle with paid editors or those of my fellow editors that think that my efforts to assist protecting our readers right to impartial articles is wrong. I commend you for your time consuming monitoring of this and related articles. I'm not sure I could have withstood the onslaught. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Just my two cents, placement of information should be based on Wikipedia guidelines (particularly WP:SUMMARY), rather than page views. However, it seems reasonable that the notable details should be added to both articles. In the Prudhoe Bay oil spill article the matters can be explained in more detail, while this article should provide a summary. Ultimately, what information is added and where is up to others, just wanted to add that I think it's not a decision between the two articles as it should be in both. Arturo at BP (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I have added a TNK-BPsection to the Environmental section. TNK-BP is a joint venture between BP and a consortium of Russian oligarchs. It is the third largest oil producer in Russia, and represents a quarter of BP's global production. As such, I believe that a mention of their environmental record is appropriate for this section. Gandydancer (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Correction - was. However this article does need a "Joint ventures and shareholdings" section to deal with topics such as TNK-BP, the shareholding in Rosneft, Shell-Mex and BP and the former BP Mobil European downstream joint venture.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The sale is completed? Gandydancer (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as I am aware Shell Mex BP had been disolved for a decade when I joined Shell in 1989... so better suited to a section on history? --BozMo talk 19:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. And since BP-TNK was such a major part of BP for a decade it deserves a mention in the lead as well. Yes aware that Shell Mex BP is defunct, as is TNK-BP (as a BP JV - it continues (for now) as a subsidiary of Rosneft) and BP Mobil, however these are important enough to deserve a proper treatment in a Joint ventures and shareholdings section as well as a line in the History.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rangoon. I looked for a more recent ref than this [8] but could not find anything. Gandydancer (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The deal only completed a couple of days ago.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Link? Gandydancer (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

[9]Rangoon11 (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I have asked our BP rep for input. Gandydancer (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The sale of TNK-BP was completed on 21 March and TNK-BP is owned now by Rosneft (RT, UPI, RFE/RL, Reuters). In addition to this, it is not correct to add TNK-BP environmental record here as that company in reality was not controlled by BP. It was discussed here. Beagel (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Rangoon11. TNK-BP belongs to the history section as other mentioned former joint ventures. I don't think they should be included in the separate section, particularly if there is a separate article TNK-BP. Beagel (talk) 08:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Per above, I remove the TNK-BP subsection. Beagel (talk) 09:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

This section from the "Environmental record" has been removed:

NK-BP is a joint venture between BP and a consortium of Russian oligarchs. It is the third largest oil producer in Russia, and represents a quarter of BP's global production. In 2012 Russia's environmental minister blamed TNK-BP for causing massive oil pollution in the Siberian region and using "practically all of its profit, almost $8 billion", on dividends while failing to invest in rebuilding its "rusty oil pipe infrastructure". The company reported 413 pipeline ruptures in 2011. In April 2012 it was announced that regulators would ask for damages from TNK-BP as one of the biggest polluters of the Ob and Yenisei river basins in Siberia.[296] [297]

I wonder if we need a little more discussion before this is removed? I note that when the Texas refinery was recently sold the new owners were not liable for BP's past conduct nor did we remove it from our page. Thus I wonder whether or not it is reasonable to remove all reference to this information from the BP article. Incidentally, I note that BP retains a 20% ownership. I have asked Arturo to check in on this and it seems to me that it would be prudent to wait for his input before we remove this section--with, of course, an update on the recent sale. Gandydancer (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It was described two days ago why this does not belong to this article. There was no response. As it was already said back in last September, BP did not have control over TNK-BP during last years since dispute between BP and Russian partners in 2008 which culminated with Bob Dudley's escape from Russia. Also, the claim that BP still owns 20% of TNK-BP is incorrect. As of today, BP owns 19.75% of Rosneft's shares not TNK-BP. Rosneft owns 100% of TNK-BP International (50% bought from AAR, 50% bought from BP), which owns 95% of TNK-BP Holding (rest 5% is traded at the Moscow Exchange), which owns different operating companies (commonly known as TNK-BP). This information is all public (and some links were provided above), so I don't understand which information should be checked. Beagel (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Beagel. Yes I saw that you left a note and I was hoping that someone new to the article would give feed back now that the article has generated so much controversy. Considering that it opened a whole new area of thought, one could have done the needed research quite easily. So where are we? Complaints that Arturo is writing the article but not enough interest to present an opinion. I must say, I still have to shake my head in wonder to think that anyone would snip at me saying there's nothing to worry about here what with over a hundred article watchers. Beagel, I don't know if you are correct or not--I only know that both you and Rangoon sure know a lot more about BP than I do. I will not persist in my argument. Gandydancer (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It's been over a week and Arturo has not bothered to respond to my request for information. Considering that various editors from other talk pages have been extremely critical of the editors that work this article, I feel I need to bring this up again. According to a 2012 report, Yury Trutnev, Russia’s natural resource minister, told a cabinet meeting chaired by president-elect Vladimir Putin that 784 “accidents” had occurred in TNK-BP’s Siberian pipeline system in 2011 and led to spills, while only 20 or 30 per year had occurred in the systems of the company’s peers, Surgutneftegaz, Lukoil and Bashneft. [10] Considering that this company was responsible for 1/4 of BPs oil production and the 784 accidents compared to only 20 or 30 from other companies--I think the year was 2011, should this information not be included in the environmental section? Gandydancer (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is more information on the sale.[11]. Is that what you needed? The sale was recently completed. BP had owned 50% of the joint venture, and had substantial representation on the board of the joint venture,[12] so discussion of its safety record belongs in this main article. Coretheapple (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

[EDIT CONFLICT] No I didn't need that. What I needed was more info on the environmental aspects. Just guessing, but from the reading I did it was my impression that perhaps the Russian leaders didn't give a rat's a** about the environmental problems till perhaps they used them to threaten BP... Well, it's one of those times you wish you could read Russian and that was true of another section that was deleted some time ago--I couldn't find anything in English. Anyway, my question is: Should this be included in the environmental section? Gandydancer (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

As I replied on my Talk page last week, I have confirmed that TNK-BP no longer exists as an entity following the completion of the sale announced by BP the week before. I am still waiting for answers on who will be responsible for the repairs and pipeline replacement and hope to have something soon. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

My take on this. So many levels of difficulty here. First of all, source (FT) is good. 2nd, what it reports is... difficult. Makes it clear that there are likely political/financial reasons why the Putin government is bringing up these numbers; and that TNK-BP disputes the numbers. I think it is consensus in the West at least, that the Putin government has used all kinds of BS charges to force companies to do what it wants, even to the point of taking them over. So the validity of any data from the Russian government is suspect at worst, and hard to judge at best. For other matters. TNK-BP came into existence in 2003 and took over a bunch of existing infrastructure. BP owned 50% of the company and Bob Dudley ran it from 2003 until 2008. Russians (the AAR group) owned the other 50% and after 2008 it was run by a Russian CEO after an ugly transition, and in Oct 2012 both sides agreed to sell it to Rosnoft; that deal was completed just last month (apparently under heavy pressure from Putin - that environmental stuff was from just a few months before BP agreed to sell its shares to Resnoft!). So for TNK-BP's ~10 year history, BP 'controlled' it for the first 5 years and the Russians controlled it for the seconed 5. This is what a joint venture is like, especially with difficult partners, in a difficult environment - it is hanging on by your fingernails. I think it would be unreasonable to discuss TNK-BP's industrial accident/environmental record lumped in with BP's. TNK-BP was never under BP's direct control the way BP's own operations have been and are. So - Couple of options - have a separate section in environment/industrial accidents in which relevant information is given about JVs and companies in which BP has a significant ownernship stake; alternative is have a separate section on JVs and companies in which BP has a significant stake, and briefly mention enviro/AI record of each such company. Either of those seems fine to me... will be hard to manage weight well! Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Your assessment is much appreciated! Gandydancer (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Joint venturers should be mentioned, of course, but in case there is no BP's stake anymore and these joint ventures have their own articles, the right place for mentioning them would be the history section while more detailed information should be added to the specific articles. Beagel (talk) 04:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I just found the last discussion on the titling of the "accidents" section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BP/Archive_8#New_structure_for_Environmental_record_and_Accidents.2Fsafety_record I see now that a valid objection was raised to titling the section "incidents," on the grounds that it might tend to minimize the serious events that transpired. I think that the current title, "Accidents," is worse. I favor "Environmental disasters" Coretheapple (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

There may be incidents that are not disasters. Who is to decide what a disaster is? Incidents is a good generic term, the individual incident sub-headings can be more descriptive. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

All accidents are at the same time incidents but not all incidents are accidents. Disaster is too subjective term. Also, as it was said, not all incidents are disasters. If the term 'incidents' would be used I propose to add a word 'major' before it to avoid a false impression that this subsection covers all incidents. Beagel (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Core, thanks for your note. Check out this definition of "accident". petrarchan47tc 06:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Beagel, 'Major incidents' would be a neutral, accurate, encyclopedic generic term. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• I also agree with this as more neutral.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

"Major incidents" is marginally better than "accidents." Petrarchan47, I see what you mean, and I understand your unease with "incidents." But it concerns me that "accident" is commonly used in the "traffic accident" sense, which in this case does not seem appropriate. Coretheapple (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

In the previous discussion I said that I did not care for accident because the word often suggests something that has happened that is (often) beyond one's control, while investigations into BP's "accidents" have invariably shown that they were, in fact, "accidents waiting to happen". I prefer Bealel's suggestion. Gandydancer (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The heading "Major incidents" makes the most sense to me, too. It describes all the types of events, is neutral and using "major" implies that only notable events will be included rather than the section becoming a long list of every possible event. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Bravo! This collaborative vetting of potential descriptive words is a template for how it should be. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Do you think it would be alright now to change it to "Major Incidents"? Coretheapple (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

That seems to be the collaborative result. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually having second thoughts about "major incidents" as a result of the points raised below. There's no hurry.Coretheapple (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

"Incident" basically just means 'event', with connotations of something minor, and something slightly negative. I think "major incidents" is absurd. This should be called either "Industrial accidents" or "Industrial disasters" with a link to that article. Both are well known terms. In either case, adding the "industrial" term makes it clear that these are not like car accidents... companies have safety policies to prevent them that are well or badly thought out, and that are used well or badly in various places and times... and after an industrial accident there are inevitably reviews of the safety procedures so that repeats can be avoided, and when the accident is found to be due to companies' having inadequate safety procedures or for not following them, they are fined on that basis. Using "industrial disasters" would help keep the article focused on major events but I worry that the BP advocates here would then start to complain that some given content doesn't rise to the level of "disaster" which would lead to endless haggling. So I prefer "industrial accidents" and we'll just rely on wikipedia's policies for notability, etc, to keep the focus on important events. And again I would prefer to see single discussions of events that are repeated in this section and in the "environmental" section; for an energy company, most industrial accidents will have environmental consequences. Jytdog (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "industrial accidents" is more appropriate than any form of "incident". "Industrial disasters" is exactly what is being described in the text, though. The industrial accidents resulted in environmental disasters. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that everything in the current section for certain rises to the level of "disaster" - "2006–2010: Refinery fatalities and safety violations" and "2008 Caspian Sea gas leak and blowout" are debatable.Jytdog (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that your point about "incidents" is well taken. I'm not so hot on use of that term now, but I also have a problem with "accident." We need to keep thinking. "Industrial accident" doesn't advance the ball much beyond "incident." All of the events described are serious. All except one involved fatalities. The one that did not involve fatalities was very serious. I think that the uninvolved editors need to work this one out.Coretheapple (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "uninvolved editors". The term I am proposing is not "accident" but is "industrial accident" which is a well known term - covers everything from slip and fall up to an oil rig blowing up. As I said above we can rely on notability to keep out "slip and fall" stuff - and by definition anything that is in Wikipedia is notable and serious. I am not sure what nuance you are after with "serious" and "very serious." Industrial accidents are bad things that nobody likes - some people spend their careers, literally, thinking about how to avoid them and there are a myriad government agencies set up to ensure that they don't happen (OSHA, EPA etc) and see here http://www.ilo.org/skills/pubs/WCMS_107829/lang--en/index.htm I would be OK with "Major Industrial Accidents" if you are looking for something more "serious" but again the more qualifiers you put on the section header, the more haggling we are going to get, over what qualifies as "major" or whatever, and we already have WP:Notability to guide us. But please clarify what you are after.Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm too much hung up on the word "accidents." My initial concern was that the word implied lack of fault. However, "major industrial accidents," thanks to the word "major," would probably work. By "involved" editors I meant editors employed by BP. I think this kind of editorial consensus-building should be by editors who do not have a declared COI. Coretheapple (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the "involved editor" thing. But you are confusing me on the "fault" thing. Nobody actually wants industrial accidents to happen - they are not good outcomes for anybody and they are not intentional (unlike the dumping described in the environmental section). And following an industrial accident, one of the first questions that is always asked is, was this the result of negligence somehow (cutting corners for example), or was this a true case of Force majeure? For each IA that we list, there should be a report by some gov't body that ruled on that question, that the article should be able to report. Anyway with all that said I don't understand where you are coming from. "Major industrial accidents" implies no more fault than does "industrial accidents".Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no technical background in this whatever. I'm approaching this as a layman from the standpoint of what "sounds" to my ear most apropos. "Major," while it may not mean much to an expert, is an important distinction to the layperson. Coretheapple (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I actually like the term 'industrial accidents' as this is neutral and quite well defined. There is even an international convention named Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents. The only disadvantage I see is that there was and still is a proposal to combine the current 'Environmental record' and 'Accidents' sections to remove repetitions, and as you said 'industrial accidents' does not cover a number of environmental events. The logic behind of combining these sections that in some cases (Deepwater Horizon) information is provided in both sections and it would be better to keep it in one place. But if this issue could be resolved I will prefer *industrial accidents' instead of 'major incidents'. Beagel (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

If we can agree on a section title I will be happy! Glad you are liking the IA title. With respect to combining matter. Yes, some things would need to stay in a separate Enviro section, but for things that overlap, I would say, put everything in the IA section, and add a sentence to the end of the lead paragraph of the Enviro section saying ~something like~: What follows is a discussion of major environmental initiatives, events, issues, etc; others are discussed in the Industrial Accidents section below"Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Once again, I don't have any strong feelings--I'll be happy with anything. Gandydancer (talk) 02:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Could we go forward with implementing the subsection title 'Industrial accidents' and merging two sections about DWH? Beagel (talk) 08:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The section called 'BP and Wikipedia' was restored by edit descriptions "WP:UNDUE is a subset of MPOV. If there some reason to imply that this text violates NPOV, rewrite into NPOV" and "this text is notable, reasonable and NPOV, and well sourced". However, when I agree that this event is described in NPOV way and it is well sourced, I disagree with the interpretation of WP:DUE as only dealing with MPOV. The WP:DUE also says: "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." Taking account the long history of the company, the broad scope of its operations and also broad scope of controversial aspects, this is a minor thing which does not belong in the article, particularly as a separate subsection. Therefore, based the above mentioned paragraph of WP:DUE I will remove this subsection again. Beagel (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I personally removed that subsection when it was initially placed there, in the view that "undue" applies. I do think that it is a close case, and that the points you raise have some validity. However, the Wikipedia episode did receive widespread publicity in multiple reliable sources, including the CBS website and Salon, two respected and reliable sources. It originated in CNet, which is likewise reliable. Therefore, on balance and despite my initial misgivings (and belief that there are far more important priorities in this article), I have come to the view that the section on BP and Wikipedia warrants inclusion. Coretheapple (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Core. It may belong somewhere, but not here. I will remove it if it is still here. Gandydancer (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Beagel you have not justified the removal of sourced content. There is no single item of content that would not also be excluded with your logic about the long history of the company - so this argument does not work. This is your own personal judgement. As per the essay WP:REMOVAL it is preferable that good faith edits remain in the article pending consensus so I am restoring it. You have to make a better case for deleting this. Gandydancer this section describes activity of BP that is fairly unique (and also pretty interesting wrt to general trends of marketing through social marketing and the like) -- it does belong in article about BP. Please provide more reasoning for your stance. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think it belongs either. Somewhere, Yes, but not here. It was just a little bubble of gas that rose to the surface. Once it popped, it was yesterdays news. If it surfaces again, maybe as a larger discussion in society and the press, I might reconsider.```Buster Seven Talk 17:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in Buster, but you need to provide arguments from policy. (I grant you that we live in an "etch a skeetch" world but Mitt Romney will tell you that you should not count on the short memory of the public as the basis for a game plan.)Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, it is described in the WP:UNDUE, particularly in this part which is in my first post in bold, why this does not belong to this article, particularly as a separate subsection. Please take account that this is not only me who think that this addition has undue weight but this was expressed at this talk page also earlier by other editors. Beagel (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I responded to that -- you said that given the long history of BP this is a blip and even mentioning it is undue. I responded, saying that by this logic, the article would be very, very short. There are few events that stand out so much over such a long history. And we certainly should not bother making the corrections to ephemeral information that Arturo has requested -- why should we bother with how many employees BP has this year or next year - why not just describe it as currently having over 50,000 employees and be done with it? This is what happens when your reasoning is applied. So it is not a valid reason for excluding NPOV, sourced content.Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

[EDIT CONFLICT] This news item was hardly more than gossip and not newsworthy enough for this article. IMO BP should be treated with the same courtesy that we offer in our bio articles and damaging information should be deleted while the discussion is ongoing. Thus, I deleted it again.Gandydancer (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Gandy, i think it would be unobjectionable from any possible perspective if placed in context. See my posts below. Coretheapple (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

For those concerned about it being out of place, one approach might be to construct a section on "BP and the Media," which could deal with BP's PR strategy and its relationship with the media. The wikipedia stuff would fit right in there. I have seen articles on far less important subjects that are much longer than this one, and I think that a section on BP's media/PR/spin strategies would be worthwhile if enough substance can be found to populate it. Coretheapple (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

A curseory search on Google uncovered this Wired article on BP's social media campaign.[13]. I'm sure there's a lot more where that came from. Coretheapple (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I, too, think it doesn't belong in the article. And I didn't even see this mentioned in the mainstream media here in Europe. Nageh (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not how wikipedia pages are supposed to work. This is good content, well sourced, and NPOV. It is relevant to BP. I agree with Core that this could be the germ of a section on BP's larger media strategy -- this is exactly how wikipedia articles grow and evolve. The constant demand on this Talk page to create full blown well wrought sections and then add them seems to me, to be a pretty ugly delaying tactic. It is not how Wikipedia usually works - articles grow and evolve all the time, and this discourse - this crazy notion about creating whole sections - is one thing that is keeping this article frozen. Beagel, simply waving at UNDUE is not making an argument. Gandy, BP is not a living person and so WP:BLP and its quick delete policy absolutely does not apply - that is a bad leap and not one that should ever be applied on Wikipedia. And Gandy your edit note says "not notable enough." As per policy "notable" is defined by discussion in reliable, secondary sources, which this is. I cannot put the content back under 3RR but it should not have been taken down and Gandy I would appreciate it if you would restore it as per the REMOVE essay I mentioned above, while we are discussing this. And it is not "damaging" news - Arturo did nothing wrong.Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and also deplore the hair-trigger use of "revert" in this article. Yes, it sometimes seems as if on this talk page we're fretting about a hypersensitive Nobel Prize winner who once went to jail for drunk driving, and not an extremely controversial company that has dumped millions of gallons of crude oil onto the coasts of Louisiana and Alaska. This company has a massive public relations problem, and that p.r. problem in itself has been the subject of extensive media coverage during and after the recent Gulf Oil disaster. It has a full-fledged social media campaign that was the subject of the cited Wired article in 2010. I submit that that article alone, along with the Wikipedia stuff, is sufficient to build a "BP and the Media" section right now. Coretheapple (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

[ed con]Jytdog, I agree that Arturo did nothing wrong but the article sure makes it sound like he and BP were involved in deceit and up to no good. As to me reverting myself, I may have made the wrong decision but I'd rather let another editor revert me as it seems right to me. As to the rest of what you said about inserting whole blocks of material, I couldn't agree more. Gandydancer (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Gandy, WP:BLP is policy that requires a quick delete of unsourced, damaging information in BLPs. As there is no justification for your action in policy, would you please undelete? The culture of editing on this page is broken - and one of the nasty parts of it is this quick deletion thing, which has no justification in policy. It is anti-Wikipedia. We need to be able to add content and have it grow and evolve. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I self-deleted (returning section) at 18:33 per talk page discussion. Gandydancer (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's another possible source. It's not peer-reviewed so not directly useable, but can help guide toward crafting the section. It's possible there is a section that could be written on the social media strategy alone.[14] Coretheapple (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC) And another http://www.cnbc.com/id/38414280 Coretheapple (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC) And Techcrunch.http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/26/bp-pr-bpglobalpr/ Coretheapple (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

CBS News ran a segment on "BP's PR Offensive." [15]. I'm sure there's more on the general subject, as well as on the social media component, which Wikipedia falls into. Coretheapple (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

No one doubts that this has received some media coverage, as have literally tens of thousands of events in BP's history. It remains a trivial event, not even worthy of a line in the History section. A whole section on it is preposterously WP:UNDUE.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote above, under that criteria, we should immediately delete about half the content on this page, and we absolutely should not update the exact number of gas stations that BP owns, as per Arturo's request, but instead should just make a high level statement about BP owning gas stations. But maybe that is also trivia, as BP has owned thousands of kinds of properties. And ditto for a bunch of the other content. Jytdog (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

That's absolutely correct. Whether the article has a 2012 or 2011 number of employees is trivial. Instead of playing trivial pursuit and expending our limited energy "updating" an article as requested by a corporate employee, we need to plug the gaping holes in this article. Coretheapple (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:OSE. Beagel (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a wholly false comparison anyhow, information about BP's most significant assets and its number of employees is central to understanding it as a topic. This is patently not.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It's now part of a larger section on BP's PR efforts, which have received substantial publicity in and of themselves. I think this Wiki stuff is amply warranted as part of that section, so it's there now. Coretheapple (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it's been taken out. Coretheapple (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I've put it back in. As was pointed out just above, this is no way to construct an article. We're treating this article like a BLP, so that an innocuous section citing reputable sources dealing with an obvious and highly publicized issue not previously dealt with - BP's image-management issues - can be dealt with. The editing culture in this article is indeed broken. Coretheapple (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Says the editor furiously trying to impose changes to the article through edit warring. Why should I waste my time discussing issues with you if you will just edit war to impose your changes anyway? You show a complete contempt for your fellow editsor and for WP, and then two minutes later sanctimoniously whinge on here.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You should not remove an entire section from the article on the specious grounds of "attack content." This isn't a BLP and there is no urgent need to remove text saying that the subject of the article has committed a crime. This is a section that discusses the BP public relations efforts, which have been amply reported in reliable sources. I've just scratched the surface on that. That section can easily be double or triple its current size, and it's amazing that there's not a word on any of that in the article already. There was an argument to be made about the Wikipedia paragraph, and I actually took that out a few hours ago, but as part of a broader section on the PR issues that content is above reproach. Coretheapple (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

So the section isn't in fact about BP's PR efforts - which would itself be a non-standard section - but about its "image problem" i.e. about the impact of things like Deepwater and Texas City, which are already dealt with at (excessive) length in the article. So it is really just a place to put more attack content about the likes of Deepwater. Last time I checked this article wasn't called The effect of Deepwater Horizon and Texas City on BPRangoon11 (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

No, the section is about BP's PR efforts - that's its title, and I fixed my post above to reflect that. But obviously BP has had an enormous image problem since the Gulf oil spill and continues to do so. It has received a large amount of media attention focusing on its crisis management, its ad campaigns, and so on. Yet here we have an article that, until recently, did not even talk about BP's widely publicized commercial's or its CEO's comment, which received worldwide attention, that he wanted his "life back." There's something terribly wrong with an article about a major subject that does not talk about major aspects of the subject matter. I think that the post in the section below does a good job of describing how that has come to be. Coretheapple (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who lived in the civilized world in 2010 knows that there were tens of thousands of articles written about BP CEO Tony Hayward, his "life back" comment, his Congressional testimony and BP's image problem. Not one word appeared on any of this in the article until I inserted that section that you removed. Hayward is hardly mentioned at all. Disgraceful. Let's put an end to the charade and start improving this article. Coretheapple (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Crap about BP and Wikipedia getting a paragraph in that section is not "improving" jack. The section also focuses too much on Deepwater Horizon, when the company's PR efforts go back long before that spill.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Devil, can I suggest that instead of attacking this, that you find sources and generate content from it to improve this section? This whole section started with content about BP's innovative decision to have an employee join discussions on the Talk page for the wikipedia article on the company, which I think is pretty cool. With DWH, BP had a paradigmatic situation to manage - and its choices will probably be the subject of many a business school lecture, like J&J's handling of the Tylenol tampering case have become. NPOV and well sourced content about that would add value to the article. There is lots that can be done with this section to make the BP article more complete, and better.Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Attempts to use this article to attack living persons need to be done with caution.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

agreed that we always need to be careful about matter related to WP:BLP --User:Jytdog

That's utterly fatuous, Rangoon, a completely bogus characterization of that section. Devil's Advocate, if that section needs to be increased in depth, than do so. What's been happening is that passages reflecting less than favorably on the company have been yanked out. That has to stop. Coretheapple (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Core, please be calm. Rangoon's point was well taken and said nicely to boot. Right?Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I've signed your comment above. I assume that's OK? What I take umbrage about is the invocation of BLP. That's just ridiculous. The Supreme Court has said that corporations are human beings, but that doesn't apply in this situation. Coretheapple (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Core, Rangoon's comment was directed toward content that might be generated about Tony Hayward, who is indeed a BLP. And Rangoon's comment was in response to your post about "Hayward is hardly mentioned at all. Disgraceful". Like I said below, you use a lot of inflammatory language, and it worries people. Please be calm. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

That's prejudging content that hasn't even been written! That is precisely the kind of "prior restraint" and excessive hesitancy that has kept this article in a state of stasis. I'm sure that if Hayward is treated badly it won't last long. Right now he is barely even mentioned. We need to stop walking on eggshells and start discussing this company frankly and openly. Coretheapple (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Core - please be calm! It was a politely stated warning about an actual wikipedia policy. For pete's sake. And you are not hearing me -- the wild way you write sometimes makes me worry too. A happy response from you would have been, "Will do! Of course I want to abide by BLP" and then everybody moves on. Cultures are built by all the parties in them - please don't be so defensive.Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Core IS calm. What is to be gained by implying he is not? ```Buster Seven Talk 21:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that was starting to annoy me. Thanks for stepping in. By the way, Jytdog, re your "editing culture" missive below, I think that what you're describing falls under WP:OWN. Coretheapple (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Following the publication of BP's annual report, I have been reading through to see if there are any updates needed to this article. I may follow up again if there are more things that I see, for instance I am aware some of the details under the U.S. operations section are now out-of-date, but for now the following details caught my eye.

In the infobox, the number of employees is now incorrect and should be updated:

• Current number of employees is 85,700. See The Wall Street Journal source below and BP Annual Report, p55

Proposed change:

85,700 (2012)^[1]

•  Done ```Buster Seven Talk 19:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

In the article's introduction:

• Production of oil equivalent is now 2.3 million barrels per day, excluding production in Russia. See The New York Times source below and BP Quarter 4 results, p9
• There are now 20,700 service stations worldwide. See BP Annual Report, p77

Proposed change:

BP has operations in over 80 countries, produces around 2.3 million barrels of oil equivalent per day, excluding production in Russia, and has around 20,700 service stations worldwide.^[2][3][4]

•  Done ```Buster Seven Talk 19:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Reverted - BP will account for its share of Rosneft’s earnings, production and reserves on an equity basis and excluding this gives a misleadingly low and somewhat arbitrary production number. A note may be in order but I oppose this approach.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rangoon --I am all curious about this change you made, reverting the implemented proposal to change the text from "produces around 3.4 million barrels" to "produces around 2.3 million barrels". Since the sale of TNK-BP to Rosneft has gone through, Rosneft is now counting those 1.1M barrels as its production, right? How can BP count them as its production too, or even count them all as a <20% shareholder in Rosneft? Thanks ahead of time, for explaining - if you care to. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

BP's shareholding in Rosneft is sufficiently large, and BP will exert sufficient control over Rosneft through such things as its seats on the board, to account for its stake in Rosneft on an equity basis i.e. 20% of Rosneft's production (including 100% of TNK-BP) will be added to BP's production total in BP's accounts. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Arturo - can you please confirm. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

That is what I thought you meant. So you are saying that the right number is 2.3 + 20% of all Rosneft's production, right? If so I see your point. However, even if Arturo confirms this, I think we cannot use it until it is published somewhere in a RS. Until then, it would seem that the most accurate and up to date, source-able number would be "2.3 (excluding BP's share of Rosneft's production)" from the NY Times article. What do you think? Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Correct, it should be 2.3 m + 20% of (Rosneft + TNK-BP). I have big reservations about using the 2.3 m figure as it is misleadingly low. If it is impossible to get an accurate number post the TNK-BP sale then I would prefer for now to say something like "BP produced ... m bpd per day in 2012" and have a note.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Proven commercial reserves are now 17 billion barrels of oil equivalent, not 17.75 billion. See BP Annual Report, p 86

Proposed change:

As of December 2012, BP had total proven commercial reserves of 17 billion barrels of oil equivalent.^[4]

•  Done ```Buster Seven Talk 19:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

In the rest of the article:

• The total number of service stations also needs to be updated in Operations in the Downstream and Service stations subsections.

Is someone able to make these updates? Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Arturo, I think that it would be better if these corrections would be vetted by people who have for two weeks posting complains over the Wikipedia how BP is rewriting the article. Being blaming for cooperating with you and helping implementing your proposals, but never being said which of my edits is inappropriate, I would really prefer that your proposals will be reviewed and vetted by these critics. I believe that their core interest is to improve the quality and creditability of Wikipedia, so certainly they will to do this. Beagel (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a question of priorities, interest, and time allocation. All, or most, of us are unpaid volunteer editors who are taking time out from our jobs and paying work to improve this article. We all have various interests, dependent on the article. What interests me in this article is that I believe it provides insufficient attention to the controversies for which BP is known, and that it fails to provide a well-rounded picture of this company. Coretheapple (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that those most interested in puffing up the "controversies" part of this article have no real interest in the core of the BP topic - its history and operations - and very little knowledge of them either. Such editors dominated the writing of this article pre-2010, leading it to become a joke article which looked like it had been written by a group of school children under the direction of an enthusiastic and well meaning but not especially bright Greenpeace activist: [16].Rangoon11 (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Beagel, I will follow your suggestion and reach out to a few of those editors who were critical. Coretheapple, that is fine and anyone is welcome to respond to my requests or not as they wish. Rangoon11, I appreciate your perspective. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Arturo, just curious -- what is up with the editor's note about "Please add new comments above this line"? I've not seen that before. On the topic of your updates, I am not sure it makes sense to have such specific statistics in multiple places in the article.... I will take a look at this hopefully by tomorrow and update things. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I made the updates before reading Jyt's entry above. Except for the last which I think Jyt questions ("...specific statistics in multiple places"). This type of proxy editing is completely transparent. Just numbers that are verified. Had they been words, I may have had reluctance to make the changes. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for making the changes, Buster Seven. I saw you doing that just after I left my note here before so I did not reach out to the other editors in the end. Jytdog, I think that comment was from above the references section before I moved the references back into the body of the request. Regarding the statistics, these are simply updates to information that was already in the article, rather than adding more. I feel that statistics like these make the article informative for readers, but editors here are free to decide what is a good amount of information and what is too much detail. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! looks like others are doing the updating. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

In case you missed it above, I have reverted the change to the production data. 2.3 million bpd is in my view a misleadingly low amount for production in view of BP accounting for its Rosneft stake on an equity basis, and the very important nature of that stake to BP. Arturo - can you not provide an updated production number including the Rosneft share?Rangoon11 (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rangoon, I am fairly certain that production figures from our share of Rosneft have not been released, although some notes on page 12 of our Quarter 4 results offer some insight. On that page, you will see a separate figure for TNK-BP production in 2012. The 2013 Quarter 1 results may give information about the Rosneft share but it has not been released yet. While I did not add the TNK-BP figure to the production total for 2012 to avoid confusion, I did recommend that the omission of a production figure for Russia should be mentioned. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiments in the section prior to this one, about the broken editing culture in this article, and I think that what's needed is a "to do" list for this article. We need a list of the aspects of this company's story that have been totally neglected. I'll start with:

1. B.P.'s public relations debacle. Its commercials, its appearances before Congress, the criticism leveled at it by local, state and federal officials. Its social media campaign and, yes, in proper proportion, the recent Wikipedia stuff. But the latter needs to be kept in proportion at its present length. The other stuff is far more significant.

2. BP CEO Tony Hayward. He was the face of BP during the Gulf oil spill, and received massive amounts of publicity that are nowhere even mentioned except for my brief reference in the section I just added.

3. Criminal and legal proceedings. These need to be fleshed out. The reader comes here for objective and comprehensive information on the company, and the massive number of legal proceedings spawned by its environmental disasters do not get adequate attention at present.

This is very superficial list, right off the top of my head. But yes, I agree, there needs to be a change in editing culture. Perhaps more use needs to be put to noticeboards and dispute-containment mechanisms. Coretheapple (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Core, if 1 and 2 are about DWH, please see here - there is already significant content in wikipedia on BP's PR around DWH. I got to the section by clicking on the "main" link to the DWH spill in this article, and in that article, clicking on the "main" link to "reactions to the DWH spill" in the Reactions section. I am adding a wikilink to that section in this article. So I don't know if you need to do a lot more work.Jytdog (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Core if this is stuff you want to generate content on, knock yourself out. I regret that you used superlatives in the list as you did, because all that is going to do, is raise the hackles of people on this page who have a different POV than you do. They actually raised mine a little bit. Use of that kind of language just inflames the sense of 'war' here - it is neither helpful overall nor is it strategic with respect to you getting what you want. Also, when you go to generate content, I suggest that you think very hard about the sources you start with - pick ones that the "other side" cannot find fault with (e.g. use only newspapers of record and try to find business-oriented sources - and use nothing from Greenpeace etc); also make sure that you are very careful to use NPOV language in the content itself (unlike what you used above), and that you do your best to be fair and tell the whole story. If you want to get content accepted into controversial articles you have the best chance of succeeding when you try very hard to meet the highest standards of wikipedia. But generate it, and add it, already! Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I actually hope to find material in peer-reviewed journals wherever possible. However, first I need to do my taxes, and I have to earn a living. If you know of someone who will pay me for my editing here, please let me know. Coretheapple (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It certainly is a very superficial list - recentist and US-centric. I know it's hard for some of our American friends to accept, but the United States is not the world, and BP has operations in 80 countries. The average reader outside the US has very little interest in a bloated attack piece which devotes huge amounts of the article to a handful of accidents in the US over the part 10 of BP's 100 years of history, whilst essentially ignoring BP's operations elsewhere. BP is for example the largest single foreign investor in Egypt. Yet there is virtually no mention of Egypt in the article, good or bad. BP is one of the largest foreign investors in China, with more than 4,000 staff and 30 JVs. Virtually no mention in the article, good or bad. BP operates the second largest refinery system in Germany, and has 2,500 service stations in the country. Virtually no mention in the article. BP is the largest single foreign investor in Russia. Little mention in the article.

BP has played a major role in the development of the North Sea and Alaska as oil producing areas. How much of this is dealt with in the artice? Very little.

Yes the article is certainly unbalanced, and you wish to make it even more so.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Rangoon, these are great ideas for content. Would love to see you add it! I am working on your earlier suggested content about safety, but I will gladly work on this when I am done with that. Everybody is free to pursue what interests them.Jytdog (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

You know, it may be that if this content comes into the article and it gets too US-centric, that it might make sense to create a "BP in the US" subarticle, if it doesn't already exist. But I suggest, that instead of all this pre-editng, let the content flow, and if it gets unwieldy we can do a split. This pre-editing is part of what is keeping the page frozen. I understand the fear of crap getting in, Rangoon -- I have had to deal with a bunch of that at Monsanto and also with all the articles about genetic modification, which I have also edited heavily, but we need to let things flow more. With the GM stuff, I ended up gathering all the controversy and putting it one article, which has worked pretty well at letting all the negative voices speak clearly, but keeping them encyclopedic instead of consuming everything in sight. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Last autumn there was a question if we should create a separate article about one of BP's subsidiaries in America called BP Products North America, Inc. The idea was strongly opposed by some of editors then. Of course, BP Products North America is not the same as BP's operations in the United States but I have a feeling that the arguments against a separate article would be same. I don't think there is a consensus at the moment for this (although I personally think that maybe at some moment in the future it would be necessary as the BP#United_States, although very concentrated, is still too long). Beagel (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I would support the creation of a BP America or BP United States article. It is more than notable enough and we have lots of content already.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no question that the article could be a lot longer and more global. But the aim is to provide a balanced look at the company based upon the reliable sourcing, which is not necessarily synonymous with a more flattering treatment of the subject matter. Coretheapple (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Great so there are options if we need them, eventually! On we go... Core, please start generating some content and stop yammering about it already.  :) Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Has Core become your whipping boy? Just above you say, "....because all that is going to do, is raise the hackles of people on this page who have a different POV than you do. They actually raised mine a little bit. Use of that kind of language just inflames the sense of 'war' here". Core deserves respect, just as you do. You should also not inflame the sense of war here. Practice what you preach, as the saying goes. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. I am sorry you misunderstand me.Jytdog (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Buster is right. Although it was not your intention, that sort of talk comes across as disrespect. Gandydancer (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Understood. I have apologized to Core on Core's page and will no longer interact with Core that way.Jytdog (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

You mean, based upon the sourcing in one country over three years. How much coverage was there in China about the Texas City explosion?Rangoon11 (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that the coverage of anything in the Chinese media, given the controls on the press there, is indicative of anything in particular. Coretheapple (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The Chinese media actually has far better coverage of foreign affairs than the American "mainstream" media. And if you think that the American media is not tightly controlled then you are sadly mistaken. No the reason why there was little, although some, coverage of Texas City in China is because the Chinese simply had no interest in the event.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)