7 ms·

Aging oil and gas industry engineer/project manager and environmentalist here. I really like this campaign! It provides an effective counter to the millions (bi

by D_Alex 14y ago

Aging oil and gas industry engineer/project manager and environmentalist here. I really like this campaign! It provides an effective counter to the millions (billions?) of dollars the oil and gas industry expends in advertising and lobbying. In my 25 year experience, the western oil and gas industry is on the balance very responsible when it comes to health, safety and environmental protection. I would much rather have Shell explore the Arctic than say Lukoil. However, Greenpeace and other environmental activists are good part of the reason why western oil and gas companies are so concerned about the environment. In places where Greenpeace has low influence/support/visibility, things like this are pretty common: http://www.tropix.co.uk/region_files/azerbajn_03.htm http://www.tropix.co.uk/region_files/azerbajn_03.htm I have dealt with enough pointy haired bosses in my work to realise that without effective activism, health, safety and environment would often be improperly compromised wrt cost, schedule and throughput.

progrock 14y ago
I'm still perplexed that Oil companies bother to advertise at all. What's the point? I'd keep a low profile if I were them. People don't really choose where they fill their car on the company do they? It's more dictated by price and whether the station is en route to work. Good point about Greenpeace keeping the oil companies on their toes. Sad though that it has to be this way. To me drilling for oil - is almost money for nothing. I'm baffled that these companies aren't behaving more responsibly.
- Retric 14y ago
  People did react to the Exxon Valdez oil spill which IMO woke the oil companies up as to the value of pure image advertising.
  - progrock 14y ago
    There was a good TV program of a tear down of a decommissioned shell/esso rig from the North Sea oil field. On yesterday (Sun 22nd July.) Apparently there was a shift in European law, that now forces companies to tidy up after they've finished. Brought about after pressure from Greenpeace for Shell trying to ditch the Brent Spar in an underwater trough. Quite how you'd do this with anything deep sea is beyond me. Worth a watch though.
  - progrock 14y ago
    There was a good TV program of a tear down of a decommissioned shell/esso rig from the North Sea oil field. On yesterday (Sun 22nd July.) Apparently there was a shift in European law, that now forces companies to tidy up after they've finished. Brought about after pressure from Greenpeace for Shell trying to ditch the Brent Spar in an underwater trough. Quite how you'd do this with anything deep sea is beyond me. Worth a watch though.
- joshuahedlund 14y ago
  > To me drilling for oil - is almost money for nothing. You might want to learn about the high costs of exploration and building rigs and wells and all the innovation that has been occurring for decades to extract greater percentages of more kinds of oil out of more kinds of places. Something like gold diggers in the 1800's might have been a lot closer to "almost money for nothing." Maybe even oil back then. But any resource that was easy enough to get for almost nothing has already been used.
  - progrock 14y ago
    If Exxon made a net income of $41 billion last year (http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/04/16/which-megacorps-pay-megataxes/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/04/16/whi...), then it's pretty much money for nothing. BP's deepwater disaster indicates that not enough is being done to protect the environment, it hasn't stopped risky drilling. That should never happen again. Some of those profits could be turned over into environmental preventative protection. These companies smack of pure greed to me.
    - hythloday 14y ago
      Exxon made a profit of $41bn on a turnover of $480bn - about an 8% profit margin. That's not really "money for nothing". That's a healthy return on a gargantuan investment. Some tech stocks profit margins: AAPL: ~30%, MSFT: ~30%, GOOG: ~25%. 3-4 times higher than Exxon. Do those companies all make money for nothing too?
      - hcurtiss 14y ago
        Exactly. You beat me to it. See source here, namely Tables 2 and 6: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42364.pdf http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42364.pdf Also here: http://ycharts.com/companies/XOM/profit_margin http://ycharts.com/companies/XOM/profit_margin Note that it was closer to 5% in Q2 2009.
      - draggnar 14y ago
        But it would be much lower if these companies were held accountable for the massive environmental impacts that they have (beyond the direct impacts of a spill). Excluding things that are even "debatable" like climate change, pollution and the effects thereof are not. These socialized costs would make oil companies unprofitable.
- saryant 14y ago
  Please look up the cost of, say, a deep water drilling rig. It is not free.
- Tobu 14y ago
  Re the low profile: regularly paying a large media group for ad space in exchange for no bad publicity would make sense to these companies. Large groups buy unprofitable newspapers for similar reasons.
lunarscape 14y ago
>It provides an effective counter to the millions (billions?) of dollars the oil and gas industry expends in advertising and lobbying. I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. Oil companies continue to exert immense influence over governments because of the taxes they pay and the contributions they make to politicians and their parties. That's meant to be "countered" with mundane jokes on fake twitter profiles and memes on reddit? Forgive me for being cynical. If anything it's a great situation for oil companies. It gives people the illusion they're actually doing something when really it means nothing and the status quo remains.
- com 14y ago
  He's not being sarcastic, I think. I've got a somewhat similar background and I agree with his stated view. Citizen and consumer activism keeps the bastards (more) honest. One thousand motivated and angry citizens with a plan can act as a very good counterweight to hundreds of millions of dollars of marketing (and lobbying). Really! Mundane jokes seem trivial, occupation of capped oil wells in the North Sea seem like a bit of a jape. But the effect of these and all the (cute) Greenpeace donation collectors is consciousness-raising and creation of citizens and consumers who ask hard questions, and that scares the politicians no end. It scares Big Oil too and keeps them (more) honest. The status quo that you speak of is vastly different to that during the 80's and totally alien to the status quo in the 50's, at least in the rich West. Perhaps you've not really noticed the change. I've worked on and off in the oil and gas industry since the 80's and I see a vast, vast change both in the public's attitude, and also in the mentality within the companies themselves.
  - gaius 14y ago
    Here's the thing tho': pranks are fun. Developing alternative energy sources is hard work, and what sponsorship does Greenpeace do in that area? Not much... That, and not any conspiracy theory, explains everything.
    - com 14y ago
      I agree: I don't give money to Greenpeace because they're a marketing organisation that raises cash to do more marketing. But: there is a school of thought that without broad community support, all the hard work won't add up to much. They might be partly right, I pay more for "green power" than my neighbours do for "glowing-in-the-dark power", and don't own a car despite how much easier it'd make my life. I guess someone's marketing worked on me...
kokey 14y ago
It's very true what you are saying about non-western oil and gas. People forget that the biggest oil spill ever was caused by a totalitarian government on purpose and not by a multinational oil corporation by accident. In the west, corporate brands make easy targets, but since the companies want to protect their brands it is quite effective at making things better.
- throwaway54-762 14y ago
  I'm curious / young / ignorant -- can you give me a link or name of the big oil spill caused by the totalitarian government?
  - Lammy 14y ago
    They're most likely referring to the spill and fires set by Iraq in 1991: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_oil_spill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_oil_spill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwaiti_oil_fires http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwaiti_oil_fires
    - throwaway54-762 14y ago
      Thanks!
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]

by D_Alex 14y ago

progrock 14y ago

I'm still perplexed that Oil companies bother to advertise at all. What's the point? I'd keep a low profile if I were them. People don't really choose where they fill their car on the company do they? It's more dictated by price and whether the station is en route to work. Good point about Greenpeace keeping the oil companies on their toes. Sad though that it has to be this way. To me drilling for oil - is almost money for nothing. I'm baffled that these companies aren't behaving more responsibly.

Retric 14y ago
People did react to the Exxon Valdez oil spill which IMO woke the oil companies up as to the value of pure image advertising.
- progrock 14y ago
  There was a good TV program of a tear down of a decommissioned shell/esso rig from the North Sea oil field. On yesterday (Sun 22nd July.) Apparently there was a shift in European law, that now forces companies to tidy up after they've finished. Brought about after pressure from Greenpeace for Shell trying to ditch the Brent Spar in an underwater trough. Quite how you'd do this with anything deep sea is beyond me. Worth a watch though.
- progrock 14y ago
  There was a good TV program of a tear down of a decommissioned shell/esso rig from the North Sea oil field. On yesterday (Sun 22nd July.) Apparently there was a shift in European law, that now forces companies to tidy up after they've finished. Brought about after pressure from Greenpeace for Shell trying to ditch the Brent Spar in an underwater trough. Quite how you'd do this with anything deep sea is beyond me. Worth a watch though.
joshuahedlund 14y ago
> To me drilling for oil - is almost money for nothing. You might want to learn about the high costs of exploration and building rigs and wells and all the innovation that has been occurring for decades to extract greater percentages of more kinds of oil out of more kinds of places. Something like gold diggers in the 1800's might have been a lot closer to "almost money for nothing." Maybe even oil back then. But any resource that was easy enough to get for almost nothing has already been used.
- progrock 14y ago
  If Exxon made a net income of $41 billion last year (http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/04/16/which-megacorps-pay-megataxes/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/04/16/whi...), then it's pretty much money for nothing. BP's deepwater disaster indicates that not enough is being done to protect the environment, it hasn't stopped risky drilling. That should never happen again. Some of those profits could be turned over into environmental preventative protection. These companies smack of pure greed to me.
  - hythloday 14y ago
    Exxon made a profit of $41bn on a turnover of $480bn - about an 8% profit margin. That's not really "money for nothing". That's a healthy return on a gargantuan investment. Some tech stocks profit margins: AAPL: ~30%, MSFT: ~30%, GOOG: ~25%. 3-4 times higher than Exxon. Do those companies all make money for nothing too?
    - hcurtiss 14y ago
      Exactly. You beat me to it. See source here, namely Tables 2 and 6: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42364.pdf http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42364.pdf Also here: http://ycharts.com/companies/XOM/profit_margin http://ycharts.com/companies/XOM/profit_margin Note that it was closer to 5% in Q2 2009.
    - draggnar 14y ago
      But it would be much lower if these companies were held accountable for the massive environmental impacts that they have (beyond the direct impacts of a spill). Excluding things that are even "debatable" like climate change, pollution and the effects thereof are not. These socialized costs would make oil companies unprofitable.
saryant 14y ago
Please look up the cost of, say, a deep water drilling rig. It is not free.
Tobu 14y ago
Re the low profile: regularly paying a large media group for ad space in exchange for no bad publicity would make sense to these companies. Large groups buy unprofitable newspapers for similar reasons.

lunarscape 14y ago

>It provides an effective counter to the millions (billions?) of dollars the oil and gas industry expends in advertising and lobbying. I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. Oil companies continue to exert immense influence over governments because of the taxes they pay and the contributions they make to politicians and their parties. That's meant to be "countered" with mundane jokes on fake twitter profiles and memes on reddit? Forgive me for being cynical. If anything it's a great situation for oil companies. It gives people the illusion they're actually doing something when really it means nothing and the status quo remains.

com 14y ago
He's not being sarcastic, I think. I've got a somewhat similar background and I agree with his stated view. Citizen and consumer activism keeps the bastards (more) honest. One thousand motivated and angry citizens with a plan can act as a very good counterweight to hundreds of millions of dollars of marketing (and lobbying). Really! Mundane jokes seem trivial, occupation of capped oil wells in the North Sea seem like a bit of a jape. But the effect of these and all the (cute) Greenpeace donation collectors is consciousness-raising and creation of citizens and consumers who ask hard questions, and that scares the politicians no end. It scares Big Oil too and keeps them (more) honest. The status quo that you speak of is vastly different to that during the 80's and totally alien to the status quo in the 50's, at least in the rich West. Perhaps you've not really noticed the change. I've worked on and off in the oil and gas industry since the 80's and I see a vast, vast change both in the public's attitude, and also in the mentality within the companies themselves.
- gaius 14y ago
  Here's the thing tho': pranks are fun. Developing alternative energy sources is hard work, and what sponsorship does Greenpeace do in that area? Not much... That, and not any conspiracy theory, explains everything.
  - com 14y ago
    I agree: I don't give money to Greenpeace because they're a marketing organisation that raises cash to do more marketing. But: there is a school of thought that without broad community support, all the hard work won't add up to much. They might be partly right, I pay more for "green power" than my neighbours do for "glowing-in-the-dark power", and don't own a car despite how much easier it'd make my life. I guess someone's marketing worked on me...

kokey 14y ago

It's very true what you are saying about non-western oil and gas. People forget that the biggest oil spill ever was caused by a totalitarian government on purpose and not by a multinational oil corporation by accident. In the west, corporate brands make easy targets, but since the companies want to protect their brands it is quite effective at making things better.

throwaway54-762 14y ago
I'm curious / young / ignorant -- can you give me a link or name of the big oil spill caused by the totalitarian government?
- Lammy 14y ago
  They're most likely referring to the spill and fires set by Iraq in 1991: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_oil_spill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_oil_spill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwaiti_oil_fires http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwaiti_oil_fires
  - throwaway54-762 14y ago
    Thanks!
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]