5 ms·
Is it crazy to think that someone is reimbursing them for this loss, like Western governments perhaps? Or maybe its some kind of opportunity cost calculation at
by xanaxagoras 5y ago
Is it crazy to think that someone is reimbursing them for this loss, like Western governments perhaps? Or maybe its some kind of opportunity cost calculation at the behest of some ESG man behind the curtain? Not the be too conspiratorial, but I'm trying to make sense of walking away from that kind of money, assuming of course that this is complete and utter bullshit:
> "I have been deeply shocked and saddened by the situation unfolding in Ukraine and my heart goes out to everyone affected. It has caused us to fundamentally rethink bp's position with Rosneft," BP Chief Executive Bernard Looney said.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- beejiu 5y agoThis follows political pressure in the past few days. "BP left the meeting with no doubt about the strength of the Business Secretary’s concern about their commercial interests in Russia." (https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/europe/390852/bp-ceo-rosneft-uk-business-secretary/ https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/europe/390852/bp-ceo-r... That obviously a bit cryptic, but I don't think this decision is purely altruistic on BP's part.
- trhway 5y agoimagine in 1945 looking at the pull out of investments in 1939 from Germany.
- rich_sasha 5y agoThey are probably selling at a heavy discount. Ie making a loss.
- Dwolb 5y agoReduction in net income at least, but I don’t know their finances well enough to know if it’s useful.
- crate_barre 5y agoIt’s not crazy to think that. 25bn can be recompensed in alternate contracts by the West. Like hey BP, you are first in line for Shale operations we’re reopening. Biden is a hard ass about Russia, and Putin knows it.
- tootie 5y agoIt could just as easily be the other side of the coin. "Either divest or you'll be last in line". It's also possible, hard as it is to imagine, that the senior executives of BP are human beings who consider their investment to be ethically untenable.
- Oberbaumbrucke 5y agoYes, everyone's pension fund.
- olliej 5y agoI mean the correct action is to require Russia to pay for all damages they have caused. They should be required to pay for the reconstruction of Ukraine. They should be required to compensate Ukrainians for the people they choose to kill. They should be required to disarm, as they have demonstrated they are willing to invade peaceful countries, without any reason other than a desire to conquer.
- vl 5y agoBTW, this also worked out great after WW1.
- arbuge 5y ago> Is it crazy to think that someone is reimbursing them for this loss Yes, that would be pretty crazy. They're taking a loss of up to $25B on their books as per their statement today, at the end of this quarter. "Reimbursing" here would mean never disclosing a donation of that amount on their books, or laundering it somehow, which would be massively illegal besides being impractical.
- xanaxagoras 5y agoI dunno how impractical it would be. A few no bid contracts that overpay and you're pretty much good to go.
- rossdavidh 5y ago1) I'm sure it _has_ caused BP to fundamentally rethink their position with Rosneft. Not necessarily for altruistic reasons, but that is probably a true statement. When they got into Russia, it looked like an investment in, say, Turkey or Egypt or China or some other moderately-unpopular-but-not-radioactive regime. It looks different now. 2) They are unlikely to get a line item = $25B payment from anyone to make up for this, but it may well be that it pays off in a lot of less easily quantifiable ways, which can nonetheless be equal or greater in value. A lot of the petroleum business involves politics, compared to many other industries, and the hit from trying to hold on to it might well have been more costly.