Talk:BP

Bunge Bioenergia acquisition

Hi editors, last week bp announced that it was taking full ownership of Bunge Bioenergia from Bunge Global for US$1.4 billion. The purchase increases bp's biofuel production capacity by 50,000 barrels per day and revenue by US$2 billion annually. This was reported by Reuters, The Rio Times, and The Wall Street Journal. Would editors be willing to add something to the article about this acquisition? I can provide some exact text if desired but will defer to the community on the content and placement. Thank you for your consideration. Vishal BP (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Vishal BP could you please add your proposed text? At most 1-2 sentences, I don't think this merits more. I would place it in the end of the 2020-present history section. Rusalkii (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Rusalkii: I can. What do you think of the following?

In June 2024, BP announced the acquisition of Bunge Bioenergia from Bunge Global for US$1.4 billion. The purchase will increase BP's ethanol production to 50,000 barrels per day and bring in US$2 billion in revenue.

References

Please let me know. Vishal BP (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done , I've removed the $2 billion in revenue since that appears to be a projection. Rusalkii (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Rusalkii: Your changes make sense. Thank you for doing that. Vishal BP (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Logo history

According to this article, the shield logo was only introduced in 1989. However, the same (or a highly similar one) was already in use in 1982 and in 1987, respectively. The only difference I can see is that it received a yellow border in 1989. --2003:DA:CF2E:4557:10FE:A05F:264:ECF8 (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality concerns about recent content additions

Hi editors, I noticed some recent changes and additions to the article (collated here) that introduce what I think is some pretty biased language. There are also several spelling and grammatical issues at play. I have a few examples.

In the introduction:

• The company's subequent attempts at greenwashing its public image led it to embark on a string of overly ambitious clean energy initiatives which ultimately diminished its value. As of auntumn 2024 its returns are the lowest of the seven major oil companies.
  • Phrasing like "embark on a string" and "overly ambitious" doesn't strike me as neutral or encyclopedic
  • The source does not support characterizing BP's efforts in green energy as "greenwashing"
  • The source does not support the claim that green energy initiatives "diminished" BP's value, nor does the source mention company value, that seems like original research to me
• Previously it has boasted an oil production rate of around 3.7 million barrels per day
  • "has boasted" is just plainly non-neutral language and I would propose restoring the paragraph to the way it was prior to these edits
  • This source is an opinion column, not regular news reporting.
• However, its profits slumped to a four-year low in 2024 following a 30% drop in profits.
  • I am not sure this is introduction-worthy
  • The profit decline was specifically for Q3 as stated in the first sentence of the source, not an overall 30% decline. The current phrasing makes it sound like an overall 30% decline
• Subsequently, the company abandoned its targets to significantly reduce its oil and gas production by 2030.
  • The juxtaposition of this sentence against the previous sentence about reduced profits makes it sound like the shift was made because of profit margins. This is not supported by the cited source, nor by other reporting on the topic by Reuters

In the new Divestment from green energy section:

• BP has struggled to reconcile its ambition to become a world leader in renewable energy with its obligations towards its shareholders.
  • This is purely opinion not supported by the source.
  • The language used is plainly not neutral.
• Since 2020, the company's five-year total return was just 7% which was the worst performance in its sector.
  • "just 7%" is not neutral phrasing
  • I question whether "the worst performance in its sector" is necessary, but will defer to editors

• Moreover, its plan to cut oil and gas production by 25% by 2030 contributed to shareholder dissatisfaction.
  • This is not supported by the sourcing. The source says "Although its tone sometimes verges on the hysterical, Bluebell is right to say that BP should drop an arbitrary target to reduce oil and gas production by 25 per cent by 2030"
  • This source is an opinion piece, the same one used in the introduction, and I am not sure it is appropriate sourcing for this kind of content

• Subsequently, BP signalled a return to its fossil fuel-based model by selling off underperforming renewable assets and approving new oil projects like Kaskida in the Gulf of Mexico.
  • Again, this juxtaposition implies a cause-and-effect not supported by the source, which is the same opinion piece cited earlier. A stronger source for the Kaskida development is this Reuters article
  • In general, I don't think the tone of this sentence is quite right, it reads more like a news article than an encyclopedia article.

Hi editors, I noticed some recent changes and additions to the article (collated here) that introduce what I think is some pretty biased language. There are also several spelling and grammatical issues at play. I have a few examples.

In the introduction:

• The company's subequent attempts at greenwashing its public image led it to embark on a string of overly ambitious clean energy initiatives which ultimately diminished its value. As of auntumn 2024 its returns are the lowest of the seven major oil companies.
  • Phrasing like "embark on a string" and "overly ambitious" doesn't strike me as neutral or encyclopedic
  • The source does not support characterizing BP's efforts in green energy as "greenwashing"
  • The source does not support the claim that green energy initiatives "diminished" BP's value, nor does the source mention company value, that seems like original research to me
• Previously it has boasted an oil production rate of around 3.7 million barrels per day
  • "has boasted" is just plainly non-neutral language and I would propose restoring the paragraph to the way it was prior to these edits
  • This source is an opinion column, not regular news reporting

• However, its profits slumped to a four-year low in 2024 following a 30% drop in profits.
  • I am not sure this is introduction-worthy
  • The profit decline was specifically for Q3 as stated in the first sentence of the source, not an overall 30% decline. The current phrasing makes it sound like an overall 30% decline
• Subsequently, the company abandoned its targets to significantly reduce its oil and gas production by 2030.
  • The juxtaposition of this sentence against the previous sentence about reduced profits makes it sound like the shift was made because of profit margins. This is not supported by the cited source, nor by other reporting on the topic by Reuters

In the new Divestment from green energy section:

• BP has struggled to reconcile its ambition to become a world leader in renewable energy with its obligations towards its shareholders.
  • This is purely opinion not supported by the source.
  • The language used is plainly not neutral.
• Since 2020, the company's five-year total return was just 7% which was the worst performance in its sector.
  • "just 7%" is not neutral phrasing
  • I question whether "the worst performance in its sector" is necessary, but will defer to editors

• Moreover, its plan to cut oil and gas production by 25% by 2030 contributed to shareholder dissatisfaction.
  • This is not supported by the sourcing. The source says "Although its tone sometimes verges on the hysterical, Bluebell is right to say that BP should drop an arbitrary target to reduce oil and gas production by 25 per cent by 2030"
  • This source is an opinion piece, the same one used in the introduction, and I am not sure it is appropriate sourcing for this kind of content

• Subsequently, BP signalled a return to its fossil fuel-based model by selling off underperforming renewable assets and approving new oil projects like Kaskida in the Gulf of Mexico.
  • Again, this juxtaposition implies a cause-and-effect not supported by the source, which is the same opinion piece cited earlier. A stronger source for the Kaskida development is this Reuters article
  • In general, I don't think the tone of this sentence is quite right, it reads more like a news article than an encyclopedia article

• Some blame BP’s organisational structure, for its protracted decision-making and obfuscated accountability. Analysts cast doubt on the company's financial projections. Specifically, the feasibility of its earnings and share buyback targets set during higher oil price periods.By the autumn of 2024, hedge funds were urging BP to refocus on its core oil and gas income streams.
  • I think in general these sentences need an according to whom? tag added to them. They strike me as being led by weasel words ("Some blame", "analysts cast")
  • These sentences are essentially just the opinion of the author and I think they should either be attributed or removed so as not to arbitrate the truth in Wikipedia's voice

• Following Auchincloss' appointment at the start of 2024, the group has tried to assuage its investors' concerns by cutting its investment in renewable energy projects and withdrawing entirely from unpopular forms of renewable energy, such as wind farms.
  • Again, there is a juxtaposition here that implies a cause-and-effect not supported by the source
  • "the group has tried to assuage its investors' concerns" – I am not sure this is the most neutral phrasing
  • "withdrawing entirely from unpopular forms of renewable energy, such as wind farms." – this is simply not accurate and not supported by the source
    • The source says (emphasis mine) "However, in recent months it has scaled back its investment in renewables, including halting all new offshore wind projects in June to placate investors unhappy with the company’s green targets."

I would love some additional thoughts from the community on how appropriate this content is and what modifications should be made. Vishal BP (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

It looks to me as though the editor who made the relevant edits struggles with issues around WP:NPOV. I wonder if it would be better to simply revert to the last good version prior to their spree. I'd be interested to hear the view of Dormskirk on this matter. Axad12 (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I agree that much of the material that has been recently introduced is pushing a POV and have reverted the recent changes for now. Dormskirk (talk) 08:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)