BP oil spill
- Started
- Last post
- 649 Responses
- BusterBoy0
db, whilst what some of what you say is undoubtedly true, it pales into insignificance compared to the devastation that is being caused and the trite bullshit that seems to be coming from BP.
- true but the trite shit is based on the trite demands of the people looking for a solid criminaldeathboy
- just would liek a a bit of understanding. if you were the ceo would do anything different? buying seo and doing image controldeathboy
- doing image control, especially when there is no magical cure to fix everythingdeathboy
- it sucks ive come to grips with it. but ill try to maintain my objectivity on the signifance of the media portraying itdeathboy
- TheBlueOne0
Nothing like disasters for tasty infographics.
- 50 years to clean up spill ... fucking shit on a dickRamanisky2
- ukit0
http://www.ogilvypr.com/en/case-…
How do you rebrand a group of recently merged oil companies as a unified global energy company?
In 1999, British Petroleum merged with Amoco and then acquired the Atlantic Richfield Corporation and Burmah Castrol. The newly re-branded, global BP sought to position itself as transcending the oil sector, delivering top-line growth while remaining innovative, progressive, environmentally responsible and performance-driven. BP sought Ogilvy's expertise to demonstrate to key opinion leaders, business partners and their 100,000 employees worldwide how the company intended to go "beyond petroleum".
Our recommendation was to position BP as a new type of global energy company -- one that confronts difficult issues like the conflict between energy and environmental needs and takes action beyond what is expected. Our goal was to engage BP's extremely diverse employee population in this transformation, unifying them under the new brand in the process.
For eight months, our team collaborated across practices, offices, and WPP sister companies to support the global re-launch. Our Brand Champions implemented change internally with leadership communications, toolkits, chat room promotions, CEO satellite broadcasts, town hall meetings and celebrations. To target the media, we produced a VNR of the new BP Connect retail service station and managed a press tour of the prototype with major media.
Response from BP's business partners in the U.S. far exceeded expectations. Launch day media coverage included top tier placements in print and broadcast, emphasizing the new logo and the effort to "go beyond". BP's global workforce responded as well. In the month following brand re-launch, 76% were favorable to the new brand, 80% were aware of the four brand values, and 77% believed it was credible for BP to go "beyond petroleum." The program garnered two 2001 PRWeek Campaign of the Year awards.
- that year, BP spent more on their new branding than on renewable energy research__TM
- calcium0
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/20…
I gotta find the article where BP stupidly admitted to trying to push to tap a new line nearby so they can salvage profits from this.
- That would explain why it's taken a month for them to try and actually terminate the well.WrappedInBooks
- lowimpakt0
companies need to be fully accountable for the actions and impacts of their business.
end of story.
- CygnusZero40
Jesus I didnt even know that thing was still leaking. I obviously dont watch the news very much. It doesnt effect me, nothing I can do about it so fuck it. I only worry about the things that effect me. Id probably have anxiety issues if I worried about all the problems in the world that I couldnt do jack shit about.
- rson0
"The Mexican Gulf oil spill in infographics Peter Griffin May 04"
- BH260
Chart of major oil spills
- good infosequoia
- But their estimate of the Horizon spill is now what they think is spilling PER DAY. So after almost a month, it should be at the bottom of that chart.nuggler
- bottom of that chart. A tonne is 7.3 barrels. http://www.bloomberg…
nuggler
- ukit0
Yeah, boo fucking hoo.
Exxon I believe holds the record for the highest profit ever recorded by a U.S. company in history ($40 billion or so, back on 2008). It's not like these guys are scraping by or something.
Who know who will be though? Every small business in that region whose livelihood depended on fishing, tourism, or otherwise making use of something they sort of figured would be around in usable form, the ocean.
We're talking about an affected area that is larger, geographically speaking, than many small countries here that Beyond Petroleum just shited all over.
If British Poo, or their contemporaries at Exxon or Chevron need to give up a couple billion in profits with a rigorous safety regime to help guarantee something like this doesn't happen again, it would almost certainly be worth it in terms of overall economic impact. Keep in mind BP has pretty much kneecapped their competitors as well by ensuring that whole region will not be accessible in the near future.
- so are u suggesting spending 40 billion dollars on a safety measure that has liek a .001 chance of failure? what is this safety measure you talk ofdeathboy
- safety measure you talk of? is this just 20/20 hindsight irrational talk? are the small peopel getting proper help when bp has 2 second guess every move for PRdeathboy
- when bp have to second guess every action, or are busy doing damage control to PR. get more with sugar then vinegardeathboy
- I think you need to read some Nassim Taleb about randomness and catastrophic failureTheBlueOne
- "40 billion dollars on a safety measure that has liek a .001 chance of failure"TheBlueOne
- .01 percent of failure = way more than $40 billion. Welcome to random reality motherfuckerTheBlueOne
- dude di u not see i was speakign generally, hell i dont even know what failure is being suggested or any odds.deathboy
- dirtydesign0
hopefully that stupid robot doesnt knock off the cap again.
- IRNlun60
Purely hypothetical since I don't know about how to actually stop a burst pipe, but can't they just blow it up at the base? Similar to burning pipelines? If so, is BP trying to save their product at the expense of our environment, food supply and livelihoods that trace back generations?
- ukit0
NYT story from 2002 on the campaign that is worth a read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/0…
BP press officers were careful not to explain exactly what ''Beyond Petroleum'' meant, but the slogan, coupled with the cheerful sunburst, sent the message that the company was looking past oil and gas toward a benign, eco-friendly future of solar and renewable energy.
New Yorkers in particular were the target of a high-saturation ad campaign that felt, at times, like an overfriendly stranger putting his arm around you in a bar. In Times Square, a huge billboard went up, reading IF ONLY WE COULD HARNESS THE ENERGY OF NEW YORK CITY. Then the stranger, perhaps feeling the need to explain his intentions, went on: SOLAR, NATURAL GAS, WIND, HYDROGEN. AND OH YES, OIL. Finally, the stranger took his arm away with a bit of a shrug: IT'S A START.
- ukit0
What's the problem? He's just doing what every normal person would do in their time off, watching their servant sail a $700,000 yacht around an island.
- vitamins0
Finally, cunts
- pillhead0
You would think an Oil Company like BP would have a recovery system in place for a disaster like this, fuck it's not the first time an Oil Rig has sunk is it. But maybe that just to mush to ask.
- lowimpakt0
BP recorded profits of $5.6bn (£3.6bn) in the first three months of 2010
- so?deathboy
- So they have plenty to pay for all the shit they just fucked up. Go back to your Ayn Rand corner.TheBlueOne
- are they not paying for it? 40% share drop. which make me question how that profit number was deriveddeathboy
- really what do you expect them to do?deathboy
- I expect them to pay. "shares" are virtual money. Real ecology and economy is getting fuckedTheBlueOne
- I hate dipshit shortsighted libertarian jackhole utopiansTheBlueOne
- how much and to whom? and to suggest shares dont equate to money is idioticdeathboy
- ukit0
Last summer, BP celebrated the 25th anniversary of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. The company put on a big barbecue; speeches were given. But those celebrations were overshadowed by the fact that BP's North Slope production, which peaked at two million barrels a day in the mid-1980's, has dwindled to less than a million today. As production has declined, BP -- already the largest operator on the slope, with roughly 30 percent of the state's oil-extraction industry -- has lobbied to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to the east and built the first offshore oil projects in the Arctic Ocean to the north. BP's mantra is to make ''zero environmental impact'' and to leave only a ''small industrial footprint.'' And by most accounts, it does wield its ground-eviscerating equipment with great care. But the bottom line is that BP's stock price -- and its obligations to shareholders -- hinges on locating more oil fields. And any new field, subjected to the drill bit, is a potential insult to the earth.
In the fall of 2000, Browne made it clear that if the Arctic refuge -- an iconic 19-million-acre tract of land in northeast Alaska that is home to polar bears and grizzlies, wolves, musk oxen and a 125,000-strong herd of caribou -- was opened up under a Republican administration, BP would be interested in exploring there. After all, the United States Geological Survey estimates that the refuge contains anywhere from 3 billion to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Again on Feb. 13, 2001, three weeks after Bush took office, Browne acknowledged that BP openly supported efforts to drill.
BP's stated intentions for the refuge happened to coincide with its ''Beyond Petroleum'' campaign, and environmentalists had a field day pointing out the inconsistencies. Greenpeace announced that until BP started seriously investing in renewables, a more fitting corporate logo would be, in the words of one spokeswoman, ''a miserable polar bear on an icecap shrinking because of global warming.'' John Browne himself was honored by Greenpeace for giving the ''Best Impression of an Environmentalist.'' And referring to the company's interest in the Arctic refuge, The Independent wrote that it was ''strange that a company boss with prominent green pretensions should advocate -- openly -- what many people would see as the industrial rape of an unspoiled wilderness.''
The protests over BP's position on the Arctic refuge could not have come at a worse time. Just a few months earlier, the company's new advertising campaign was met in some corners with howls of derision and even demonstrations outside its London offices. Stung by the controversy, the company tried to pull several TV spots, and where that time was locked in by contract, BP lost ''several million dollars,'' according to two people involved in the ad campaign. In cases where ads could not be pulled, the company removed the words ''Beyond Petroleum.'' ''It's funny,'' says one of them, ''I never doubted that they were the most progressive oil company around, but they didn't think through what it would require from a P.R. point of view. By pulling the ads, they showed weakness rather than having the courage of their convictions, which is what the whole rebranding effort was all about.''
Later, when the time came to prepare for the campaign's second phase, BP once again waffled over whether to use the phrase ''Beyond Petroleum.'' ''I was in so many meetings when the answer was no, yes, no, yes,'' says one member of the ad team. And the company's concern over how its P.R. message was being perceived delayed the campaign for more than a year.