Follow this blog:
RSS

Will Exxon’s relocation of offshore rigs accelerate America’s independence from oil?

By | June 15, 2010, 12:18 PM PDT

Irving, Texas-based Exxon Mobil has drilled 262 deep-water wells in the last 10 years. Thirty-five of them were in the Gulf of Mexico.

Joining top energy executives from BP, ConocoPhillips, Chevron and Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson said at a U.S. House Energy Committee hearing that the company will send its deepwater drilling rigs to other parts of the world during the Obama administration’s moratorium, according to a Bloomberg report.

Tillerson said:

We will redirect our human resources, the technical talent, to other parts of the world where we’re allowed to work, and we will redirect the equipment elsewhere. This stuff is too expensive to let them sit around.

Surely when the moratorium is lifted, the oil companies will return, right? Wrong.

Once federal regulators allow deepwater drilling to resume, most of the rigs will be stationed elsewhere — China, Indonesia and so forth — and not prepared to move back, according to Brookshire Advisory & Research president Gianna Bern in the Bloomberg article.

So that begs the question: is the Gulf oil spill accelerating the United States’ independence from oil as an energy source if offshore oil rigs won’t come back?

Many have said the Gulf oil spill will be the catalyst for legislative environmental change. But that’s based mostly on a political climate — appeasing a population that is angry at energy companies for damaging the nation’s shoreline, flora, fauna, tourism and fishing industries.

But what if the oil spill is a catalyst for change from a business perspective?

What would America do if the oil companies simply don’t want to come back? Will it turn to cleantech, in the form of solar, wind and on-shore fossil fuels such as natural gas?

Clean technology is growing rapidly, but many companies large and small have expressed a wish for more federal incentives to facilitate the growth of the industry.

But if “Drill, baby, drill” is a no-go, and oil companies see America’s shores as toxic to business, it seems their absence throws a wrench into the gears of the offshore drilling business — thus altering the business landscape and perhaps providing a different kind of incentive for the adoption of green technology.

Related on SmartPlanet:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Andrew Nusca

About Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca is editor of SmartPlanet.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca

Editor

Andrew Nusca is editor of SmartPlanet and an associate editor for ZDNet. Previously, he worked at Money, Men's Vogue and Popular Mechanics magazines. He holds degrees from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and New York University. He based in New York but resides in Philadelphia.

Follow him on Twitter.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca
Andrew Nusca does not hold any investments in the companies he covers.
If you liked this, don't miss...
9
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Will Exxon's relocation of offshore rigs accelerate America's independence from oil?
Maybe if Zero point tech is released, this discussions would not be
necessary.
Posted by joel@...
15th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Will Exxon's relocation of offshore rigs accelerate America's independence from oil?
The economic issue is not where we get oil (our Gulf coast or the Gulf of Arabia or wherever --- (that is a political issue).

There are a number of technologies that can be used in place of oil for both pure energy uses (gasoline) and for raw materials uses (making starting materials for "petrochemicals" - eg plastics).

But most of these have one problem now: the solution systems are more expensive than ones using oil.

Other solutions will only become viable in the long term if petrochemical-based systems become more expensive.

Usually the real cost of pulling oil (or natural gas) out of the ground is so low that the those producers / markets have been always able to undercut alternative solutions.

So if this spill causes the real price of oil to increase enough - permanently - the alternatives have a chance.

In the end, even if the cost of oil in the US increases, petrochemical production will just move somewhere else (ok - it already is moving.. it will just move faster).

Only when there is a real shortage of oil and the producers cannot deliver what is needed by the market, will the price go up. That will create the market for the pricier alternatives that can survive without subsidies.

Sorry to be so pessimistic...
Posted by mihondo
16th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Will Exxon's relocation of offshore rigs accelerate America's independence from oil?
As long as oil is cheaper than Green forms of energy (and it will be for a long time), we'll continue to use oil and all its petrochemical derivatives. It's a "green dream/delusion" that oil companies moving their operations from US to elsewhere will help green take off. It's economics not politics that will shift us to green. This accelerated shift will just mean more of our money and jobs go elsewhere.

Although it is counter intuitive, the real push for Green should be subordinated to a push for energy independence. Once we start to produce more of our energy needs domestically (Oil, Natural Gas, Nuke) we'd actually have a chance to fund true green development. We currently send a billion a day to countries that don't like us, to buy their oil, and not only do they get that money they have millions of jobs in their economies to supply the oil. If those jobs were here in the US we'd have NO government revenue problems? personal taxes and corporate taxes would be coming into the US treasury. Also once most of our energy production is local then we could enact real political control over the industry. We could force them to invest and move to greener energy. Currently our enemies get a billion/day from us, they get all the jobs that go with producing, AND we have no political control of them at all (unless we send the best of our fathers, sons, and brothers to the Middle East to fight for oil). The liberal Green movement has it all wrong, bring energy production home, save money, get jobs, gain political control over the industry? com'on let's be smart not politic!
Posted by steve@...
16th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Hey! Talking heads... Yeah! You!
Do you know that oil is the by-product of deep-dwelling microbial action? That's right. Bugs are always pooping out more of the stuff. They're related to the bugs that eat the stuff. They have cousins in the atmosphere that munch on similar, air-borne chemicals.

Do you know how much oil leaks out of the earth all on its own? In the Gulf of Mexico, estimates are about two, count 'em, two Exxon Valdes' worth every year. But this happens all over the earth. I've seen some of it with my own eyes. We can't pump it out fast enough.

Do you know why hydrogen is so unwieldy? NO CARBON! Adding carbon solves all the storage and combustion issues, making the hydrogen smaller, liquid at human temperatures, and making it burn hotter.

And the carbon it produces is a good thing! Without it, we'd all be dead! And just because it's mixed with hydrogen, making hydro-carbons, doesn't make it bad. Another word for hydro-carbons is ... ready? Carbohydrates! Without which, once again, ... we'd all be dead!

We're awash in fuel. It's a natural by-product of natural processes. It's a symbiotic relationship: The more carbon we release into the atmosphere, the more plants have to breathe (and lock up into more carbohydrates and hydrocarbons), releasing oxygen into the atmosphere. The more oxygen they release, the more we have to breathe. And around and around the carbon goes.
Posted by Gaius_Maximus
16th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Will Exxon's relocation of offshore rigs accelerate America's independence from oil?
Gaius_Maximus:

You are correct about the cycle of carbon. But the problem is overproduction and clearcutting. So in your scenario you don't account for the reduction of Plant life and carbon usage that human sprawl causes. "Clear cutting for farm land, Deforestation etc". so the drain of carbon in the atmosphere does not get reduced at an equal rate. the environment then gets saturated and cannot get rid of the excess. Where in the past there would be a good buffer amount which was able to handle the excess. Now there is not, and every little thing keeps adding to the pile making it bigger. No where do we see shrinkage.
Posted by chris.kulisz@...
16th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Will Exxon's relocation of offshore rigs accelerate America's independence from oil?
When does the dialogue start about the Montana oil shale and the fields in North America that can be stimulated to offset imports ?
Posted by seaxorce
16th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Will Exxon's relocation of offshore rigs accelerate America's independence from oil?
re: Gaius_Maximus/ Talking Heads

If only everything were that simple. Unfortunately, you've skipped over a few significant steps in your scientific reasoning.

Who told you that hydrocarbons and carbohydrates are the same? Would you really use methane or acetylene (hydrocarbons) as a sugar substitute (carbohydrate)? Check a grade school science book: hydrocarbons have hydrogen and carbon molecules; carbohydrates (a very different beast) are carbon, hydrogen and oxygen.

Yes there are naturally occurring oil ?leaks? in the ocean, but nothing that overwhelms the oceans? ability to absorb and process the oil like man-made spills and leaks can and do. The natural leaks seep slowly and are not as concentrated as man-made gushers, so ocean or gulf water is able degrade the oil. In any case, please note: 1) This is hardly an argument that lessens the huge impact of man-made (and avoidable) catastrophes; 2) Rush Limbaugh, the apparent source for your info, is one of your ?talking heads,? not a scientist.

Your carbon reasoning is just wacky. Here?s a refresher: Hydrocarbons = smog = air pollution! If, as you say, microbes and bugs turn all oil and pollution into safe by-products in natural-occurring cycles, then we shouldn?t have any pollution! News flash #2: Plants, just like the human body, don?t like pollution or lots of particulate matter in their air; it stunts and/or mutates their growth and can kill them.

And yes, plants store carbon dioxide and produce oxygen, but the world?s plants (a shrinking population) already process what they can. (We could also explore the fact that trees emit hydrocarbons as well as oxygen. ?) In fact, having too many hydrocarbons (i.e. pollution) in the atmosphere can effectively choke plants causing them to produce LESS oxygen and process less carbon dioxide. So guess what, releasing more hydrocarbons just produces more air pollution. Duh. Carbon is key to life, but that doesn?t mean that carbon in any form is good for life.
Posted by toolow66
16th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Will Exxon's relocation of offshore rigs accelerate America's independence from oil?
We MUST be dragged from 2+ ton behemoths into something that does less damage. On west coast the distances make it highly troublesome.
Posted by LostValley@...
17th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
OK, make it simple.
NO, it will not accelerate independence from oil. Only and alternative source that is economically competitive will do that. That is the bottom line. One can argue all around the edges but that is the core of the issue. I do not ask you to like it, just recognize it.
Posted by Sagax-
17th Jun 2010
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!