I read there is high interest in BP's NS assets. I imagine that everyone wants to expedite the sale, especially the affected employees. It will be very beneficial to work for a company that values the assets and employees and considers them a core asset rather than small legacy asset. Alaska has thrived after BP's sale.
6 replies (most recent on top)
@v2 North Sea has lots of gas and deeper oil…ask Norway 🇳🇴 the Vikings 1 the UK 🇬🇧 0. UK is burdened by regulations and political interference. The rock is good, the oil is there, and UK has talented people…but when you have ((Miliband))in power…lights out…game over
But.. Alaska has lots of oil and gas.. the north sea is played out..
For those unfortunate souls still with North Sea BP…stop being proactive and dynamic…the lower the oil production today the lower the asking price and the higher the uplift benifits to your future employer. The more troubles the better…BP is out…pull a Hilcorp
I know one engineer that got a 40% bump in pay in Alaska by Hilcorp to stay after the sale.
@OP Exactly. BP has already signalled that the North Sea is no longer part of its future, so the best outcome for employees is a buyer that actually wants these assets and treats them as core. Sitting inside a company that has mentally exited the basin does nothing for workforce morale or long term investment.
A fast, clean sale is in everyone’s interest especially the people whose careers are tied to these fields. The Alaska precedent is telling once BP stepped aside, the new operator invested heavily, prioritised the workforce, and the whole business thrived. That’s what happens when assets land with an owner who sees opportunity instead of legacy.
If the North Sea goes the same way, employees could end up far better off than staying under a parent company that has already moved on.
Great point! Alaska by every single measure is better off without BP. BP has a parasitic management class who’s unsafe, unprofitable, and make working difficult