Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

ExxonMobil Abandoning $7 Billion GTL Project In Qatar - NYT

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 01:25 PM
Original message
ExxonMobil Abandoning $7 Billion GTL Project In Qatar - NYT
HOUSTON, Feb. 20 — Exxon Mobil announced on Tuesday that it would abandon one of its biggest investments ever, a project with Qatar’s state-run oil and gas company to produce clean-burning diesel from natural gas.

Instead, Exxon Mobil said that it could concentrate on a new gas drilling project in the emirate’s rich Barzan field, which is close to the site of the gas-to-liquid project. The Barzan project will initially produce 1.5 billion cubic feet of gas a day and eventually much more for the fast-growing Qatar domestic market in 2012.

The Exxon project is apparently a victim of those costs, although the company would not explicitly say so. "This decision to not progress with G.T.L. is in line with our focus on maximizing the value of resources for both our host government as well as our shareholders,” said Jeanne Miller, an Exxon spokeswoman, using the initials for gas to liquid. Ms. Miller said the gas-to-liquid project had been slated to cost $7 billion three years ago, “and we have not discussed project costs since then.” She added, “I’m not denying costs were a factor” for the change in company strategy in Qatar.

Energy companies have shelved or delayed several projects in Canada over the last year or so because of cost overruns in oil sands and conventional fields, and Qatar itself announced a moratorium on new gas projects last year. But Tuesday’s announcement came as a surprise since the chief executive of Exxon, Rex W. Tillerson, had said as recently as September that the company was moving forward with the project, albeit with efforts to control costs.

EDIT

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/business/worldbusiness/21exxon.html?ref=business
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. Tap, tap, tap...
Another nail goes into the coffin of the happy motoring civilization.

As much as I despise CERA, this comment strikes home:

“Costs for oil and gas development around the world are up 53 percent since 2004, and these rising costs are a top preoccupation of the industry,” said Daniel Yergin, chairman of the Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a consulting firm. “People are reprioritizing and everybody is going back to the drawing board again on major projects.”

Costs are rising, production is declining and nobody seems to know which way to turn. I'm not feeling all warm and fuzzy right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Double T Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. More market manipulation and................
Edited on Wed Feb-21-07 01:53 PM by Double T
the hell with the environment, we're (exxon mobil) NEVER making enough money!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I don't see it that way.
Given that a company has a right and a duty to make money, XOM is in a bit of a pickle right now. They are a fossil fuel company in a world with dwindling opportunities to extract or produce fossil fuels. I see this as a very difficult business decision for them. What is most useful to Qatar and their shareholders - 150,000 bpd of liquids made from natural gas, or 1.5 billion cubic feet of the gas itself? The fact that they have walked away from a 7 billion dollar investment indicates to me that the choice was tough. Nobody, not even XOM, leaves that kind of money on the table without a compelling reason. I don't see how market manipulation could possibly be in play here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Double T Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Oh, please..........
read: http://www.citizen.org/documents/HotProfitsGlobalWarming.pdf

Sept. 6, 2006

Oil Companies Manipulate Markets and Gouge Consumers, Harming Both Economy and Environment

Report Details Solutions to Regulate Oil Industry Profits and Finance Clean, Sustainable Energy

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Americans are paying more for gasoline than they would if they had access to competitive markets, and oil companies are using the windfall profits to buy back their stocks rather than make investments in sustainable energy, according to a report released today by Public Citizen. The industry is taking advantage of its huge market control and lax energy trading oversight to gouge Americans, squandering the opportunity to invest in cleaner, sustainable sources and curb the nation’s dangerous addiction to oil.

The report, “Hot Profits and Global Warming: How Oil Companies Hurt Consumers and the Environment,” shows that soaring prices are not dampening demand because most families have little leeway to alter their driving habits. Federal government statistics show this summer’s gasoline demand up between 1.6 and 1.9 percent from 2005.

High energy prices are translating directly into record oil company profits. In the first six months of 2006, the five largest U.S. oil companies posted $59.4 billion in profits. These companies have spent $112 billion since 2005 to buy back their own stock and pay dividends rather than invest in infrastructure or alternative energy sources, according to analysis done by Public Citizen.

Congress has summoned BP for a hearing on Thursday before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to answer why it allowed its Alaska pipelines to deteriorate despite such large profit margins, causing a partial shutdown of oil production in America’s largest oilfield and temporarily driving up global oil prices. And although BP claims it is the renewable energy leader, it plans to invest just $800 million a year in solar, wind, natural gas and hydrogen energy – less than 2 percent of the total amount the company posted in profits, stock buybacks, dividend payments and cash reserves in 2005.

“Under the current market framework, oil companies aren’t making investments in ways to break our addiction to oil and apparently have no intention of doing so,” said Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen’s energy program and the report’s author. “With $1 trillion in assets tied up in extracting, refining and marketing oil, their business model will squeeze the last cent of profit out of that spent capital for as long as possible.”

While some of the profits stem from the global increase in the price of petroleum, the report makes clear that large oil company mergers have squelched competition and hurt American consumers. Recent mergers between giant oil companies such as Exxon and Mobil, Chevron and Texaco, and Conoco and Phillips have resulted in just a few companies controlling a significant amount of America’s gasoline. Since 2005, the largest five control 55 percent of the refining market, and the largest 10 dominate 81.4 percent.

Recent federal investigations have also revealed that U.S. energy markets are susceptible to market manipulation by these oil behemoths. BP, already under investigation for allegedly manipulating the U.S. propane market in 2004, is facing new scrutiny in a federal probe about manipulation of crude oil and gasoline markets. Energy trading markets where prices for energy are set were recently deregulated, raising additional concerns that oil companies, hedge funds and investment banks are gouging consumers in the futures exchanges.

Oil company practices are hurting both the economy and the environment. Imported oil represents one-third of America’s trade deficit, and increased prices may be slowing economic growth, adding to inflationary pressures and creating financial hardship for tens of millions of American families as well as the airlines and other industries. Petroleum products are also highly polluting and account for 44 percent of America’s world-leading greenhouse gas emissions, a major contributor to global warming.

In the report, Public Citizen presents a plan to reform America’s energy markets, combat global warming and promote sustainable alternatives to our reliance on fossil fuels. It calls for implementing a windfall profits tax, repealing all existing oil company tax breaks and loopholes, and dedicating the revenues to financing sustainable energy solutions. It also recommends re-regulating energy trading exchanges to restore transparency and strengthening anti-trust laws to crack down on oil companies’ anti-competitive actions.

Public Citizen calls for improving vehicle fuel economy standards and funneling the money saved from repealed oil industry subsidies to fund clean alternative energy sources, energy efficiency and mass transit. The report recommends against an expansion of nuclear power, which produces radioactive waste and pollution, requires billions of dollars in annual direct and indirect subsidies, and would do nothing to end America’s addiction to oil.

“It is clear that in the next decade we need to transition to cleaner, sustainable energy as a solution to environmental degradation and global warming,” said Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook. “But as long as the oil industry is able to manipulate markets to garner record profits and is not required to invest responsibly in our energy future, it will be a key part of the problem.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thevenin Donating Member (28 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. It's called "Peak Oil"
It's called "Peak Oil" - in the Ken Deffeyes and King Hubbert use of the term.

Time to apolitically and non-hysterically look at nuke again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. That's my take on it too.
Edited on Wed Feb-21-07 02:15 PM by GliderGuider
The fact that XOM was messing around with GTL to begin with is a pretty broad hint.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thevenin Donating Member (28 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. My own left wing engineer bias
is that the Iraqi War and the Iranian Puffing and Strutting is a Bush-Cheney-ExxonMobil-TexacoChevron response to "Peak Oil." And when I read PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" with an eye on Deffeyes and on my old geology book -- I was further convinced -- Iraq is a resource war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC