Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It turns out BP is no longer a British Company. Luckily last time, BP decided to build a small administrative office building on the West Houston campus instead of moving the headquarters to Chicagoland (the research center in Warrenville/Naperville or the Aon building--the tall white office building in front of Millennium Park, famous for the Cloud Bean sculpture from 10 years ago).
Media reports noted that the division head has Colorado ties (a Mines graduate), which may explain this dubious decision.
I wouldn't blame anyone thinking about Chicago (despite the harsh winter, especially this year), but Denver? What's so good about Denver and Colorado, again?
Cut the rhetoric. Denver is an awesome city in itself with a wealth of outdoor activities.
It turns out BP is no longer a British Company. Luckily last time, BP decided to build a small administrative office building on the West Houston campus instead of moving the headquarters to Chicagoland (the research center in Warrenville/Naperville or the Aon building--the tall white office building in front of Millennium Park, famous for the Cloud Bean sculpture from 10 years ago).
Media reports noted that the division head has Colorado ties (a Mines graduate), which may explain this dubious decision.
I wouldn't blame anyone thinking about Chicago (despite the harsh winter, especially this year), but Denver? What's so good about Denver and Colorado, again?
Denver has been a regional energy hub for the Rockies for years. It's not too surprising that a company the size of BP might want a presence there.
A few years ago, there was quite a bit of frenzied reporting by Houston news outlets about how Halliburton was setting up a headquarters in Dubai, and how the company was completely ditching Houston to move to the Middle East. The whole thing was poorly understood by the newspeople and even more wildly exaggerated by them; the CEO of Halliburton was establishing an office in Dubai to better serve its clientele in that part of the world; a grand total of about 50 personnel would be moving from Houston to Dubai. The CEO, Dave Lesar, would be working out of that office for an indeterminate length of time, something on the order of perhaps 3 to 5 years. However, 99% of Halliburton's personnel and operations stayed exactly where they were, completely unaffected by the opening of the new regional office half a world away.
Lesar called the then mayor of Houston, Bill White, to fill him in on Halliburton's plans, and to offer reassurance that for the most part, it would be business as usual at Halliburton as far as their presence in Houston was concerned. Panicked newsies asked the mayor for comment on this "devastating" news, and White told them he was aware of the plans, and that this overseas office was no particular source of concern to him as far as any economic impact on Houston was concerned.
"But...but...Halliburton is moving to Dubai!" the apoplectic newsies said. (It apparently never occurred to the empty-headed talking TV heads that Halliburton might want to pursue business opportunities in the world's largest oil-producing region.)
"No, Halliburton is opening another office in Dubai, so as to serve their clients in that part of the world better. Dave Lesar will work out of that office for some period of time. He called and told me all about it, which I appreciated. I'm not concerned about this at all," Bill White said.
And sure enough, it wasn't a big deal at all.
Neither is this move by BP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KerrTown
It turns out BP is no longer a British Company.
Oh, they're still quite British. The Houston offices deal with London on a daily basis, I can assure you. (Much of Mrs. Miteybad's day-to-day work revolves around communicating with London.)
The bulk of their assets may indeed lie outside the British Commonwealth, but make no mistake: they are still a British concern. Very little happens in that company that isn't approved by London at some level.
Cut the rhetoric. Denver is an awesome city in itself with a wealth of outdoor activities.
Also this decision was anything BUT dubious.
Besides already being the Energy Capital, Houston has much more potential than Denver in becoming an Alpha global city and becoming a megacity, which makes the title of this thread even more ludicrous.
I could understand why United stayed in Chicago and the temptation for BP USA to locate in Amoco's old HQ. It's a lovely city in many dimensions! Denver just offers outdoor activities in the nearby mountains (must be code for "slacker for the weekends"). Houston is a cultural hub and a gastronomy hub, not as much as Chicago but certainly more than Denver. The only con for Chicago is the horrible winter weather.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milton Miteybad
Denver has been a regional energy hub for the Rockies for years. It's not too surprising that a company the size of BP might want a presence there.
I thought Calgary that takes that title? Denver is more of a regional office run from Houston. But I wouldn't be surprised if the Energy Capital shifts to Calgary with the recent political instability in the U.S. right now, along with consolidating two outposts into one.
Quote:
Oh, they're still quite British. The Houston offices deal with London on a daily basis, I can assure you. (Much of Mrs. Miteybad's day-to-day work revolves around communicating with London.)
Well the college recruitment team said BP is not British anymore--BP does not stand for British Petroleum. Company-wide retraining should be in order!
I would not be surprised if they did an inversion with most of their assets and workforce in the U.S. division, just like Walgreens, another Chicago company, but still run out of London but with a U.S. charter.
The focus should be placed upon what the new market is going to be and not on the price of a barrel of oil
Quote:
Originally Posted by KerrTown
Besides already being the Energy Capital, Houston has much more potential than Denver in becoming an Alpha global city and becoming a megacity, which makes the title of this thread even more ludicrous.
I could understand why United stayed in Chicago and the temptation for BP USA to locate in Amoco's old HQ. It's a lovely city in many dimensions! Denver just offers outdoor activities in the nearby mountains (must be code for "slacker for the weekends"). Houston is a cultural hub and a gastronomy hub, not as much as Chicago but certainly more than Denver. The only con for Chicago is the horrible winter weather.
I thought Calgary that takes that title? Denver is more of a regional office run from Houston. But I wouldn't be surprised if the Energy Capital shifts to Calgary with the recent political instability in the U.S. right now, along with consolidating two outposts into one.
Well the college recruitment team said BP is not British anymore--BP does not stand for British Petroleum. Company-wide retraining should be in order!
I would not be surprised if they did an inversion with most of their assets and workforce in the U.S. division, just like Walgreens, another Chicago company, but still run out of London but with a U.S. charter.
If there was a relocation of energy resources back towards the interior of this nation because of its transitioning over from a major importer of oil to that of an exporter of it, then that is going to have the effect of slowing down both the economy of Texas and Houston. The energy business is not set in concrete. Before it moved to Houston, it was located elsewhere.
Figure if just fifteen to twenty percent of the oil business in Houston did pick up to relocate elsewhere, that could idle the local economy for many years.
It is not speculation to assume things are going to change because of a new oil market that has formed. The frackers in this nation just got through breaking the cartel causing them to cut oil supply. During the eighties, the opposite situation happened as the cartel was able to make a shambles of the energy industry in the United States.
How can the energy business in Houston remain fixed in granite when the market outside is quicksand? Stop looking at the price of a barrel of oil and start looking at the new market for oil. No one is certain what that is going to be. Until the market settles and the picture becomes clearer, don't expect there to be an increase in hiring. A price increase in the barrel of oil that is happening today is mostly benefitting investors who live all over the world.
Well the college recruitment team said BP is not British anymore--BP does not stand for British Petroleum. Company-wide retraining should be in order!
I would not be surprised if they did an inversion with most of their assets and workforce in the U.S. division, just like Walgreens, another Chicago company, but still run out of London but with a U.S. charter.
I'm not sure why the recruiters might say that, other than BP adopted a trademark of "Beyond Petroleum" for a time some years back, to emphasize their forays into alternative energy technology, which worked about as well for BP as they have for the American taxpayer, which is to say that they haven't, for the most part.
The legal name of the entity is now BP, PLC (public limited company). Wikipedia describes them as a "British multinationaloil and gas company headquartered in London, England." It may be that "BP," in that context, is no longer an acronym for British Petroleum, although it was for decades. Most of their asset base is outside the UK. Because of BP's acquisition of ARCO in 2000, BP is the largest operator on Alaska's North Slope. They are also the second largest operator in the Gulf of Mexico. In the North Sea, the UK's primary producing province, however, BP is merely one of many companies that operate a handful of fields.
However, the "A" level of corporate management for BP is in London. It's not unusual for BP personnel in Houston to rack up a lot of frequent-flyer miles between Houston and London. In past years, here in western Harris County, it wasn't that unusual to encounter UK expatriates employed by BP in the local restaurants and grocery stores. (Some of them liked to yell at other motorists on the road in their nearly unintelligible Scots or Welsh accents. ) And if somebody below the "A" level at BP screws up bad enough, they will have the opportunity to explain themselves to "A"-level managers in London.
So, what the college recruiters might say is one thing, I guess, but what American employees of BP in Houston deal with is another. And a lot of the time, they're dealing with London.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KerrTown
I thought Calgary that takes that title? Denver is more of a regional office run from Houston. But I wouldn't be surprised if the Energy Capital shifts to Calgary with the recent political instability in the U.S. right now, along with consolidating two outposts into one.
I wouldn't characterize Denver as a "regional office run from Houston," myself. It has its own share of oilpatch players who work the Rockies and in some cases, the Permian Basin. And while Calgary is an important energy hub for the Northern Rockies and Canada, I somewhat doubt that any perceived "political instability" in the U.S. is going to precipitate a headlong rush of companies exiting Houston for Calgary. The level of "political risk" as the term is applied to the oil business is about the same in Canada as it is in the U.S.
Besides already being the Energy Capital, Houston has much more potential than Denver in becoming an Alpha global city and becoming a megacity, which makes the title of this thread even more ludicrous.
I could understand why United stayed in Chicago and the temptation for BP USA to locate in Amoco's old HQ. It's a lovely city in many dimensions! Denver just offers outdoor activities in the nearby mountains (must be code for "slacker for the weekends"). Houston is a cultural hub and a gastronomy hub, not as much as Chicago but certainly more than Denver. The only con for Chicago is the horrible winter weather.
.
You really don't seem to get it. Ill try and break it down further:
1) BP is relocating the "Onshore/Lower 48" office to Denver.
2) This office will primarily oversee the extraction of oil within the lower 48.
3) Extraction of oil within the lower 48 overwhelmingly comes from North Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, Montana, and West Texas.
Now, given all of that, you should be able to look at a map and see why this move makes sense. You think they give a hoot that Houston is a gastronomic hub when making a decision based on what geographic is best??? This isn't a Denver vs. Houston which city offers the most thread.
All of this together, you clearly don't have any clue what Denver offers. Stop being sour grapes and bashing the place simply because were losing 200 jobs to Denver.
Ditto, I wouldn't mind if the large oil company I work for moved to Denver.
Love me some Houston, but would love to be that close to the Rockies with all the hiking, skiing, and national parks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The focus should be placed upon what the new market is going to be and not on the price of a barrel of oil
) And if somebody below the "A" level at BP screws up bad enough, they will have the opportunity to explain themselves to "A"-level managers in London.
