Gulf Oil Production Moving to Africa

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter russ_watters
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Oil
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the shift of oil drilling operations from the Gulf of Mexico to Africa, specifically the Republic of Congo, due to a perceived decrease in political and economic risk. Diamond Offshore Drilling has relocated its floating rigs, which cost approximately $510,000 per day, as a response to the Obama administration's moratorium on deepwater drilling. Industry analysts predict that up to five additional rigs may follow, exacerbating the economic impact on the U.S. with significant job losses and revenue declines, estimated at $42.3 billion annually.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of offshore drilling operations
  • Knowledge of U.S. oil production regulations and moratoriums
  • Familiarity with economic impacts of oil industry shifts
  • Awareness of global oil market dynamics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of U.S. offshore drilling regulations on the oil industry
  • Examine the economic effects of relocating drilling rigs to Africa
  • Analyze the operational costs and revenue potential of deepwater drilling
  • Investigate the role of political climate in energy sector investments
USEFUL FOR

Oil industry professionals, energy policy analysts, economists, and anyone interested in the impact of regulatory changes on offshore drilling operations.

  • #31
mheslep said:
Given the cost of lost income during a move is $30M, why do you believe the redeployed rigs would ever come back?

New administration, new incentives to come back. 30$ mill is a drop in the pond.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
KalamMekhar said:
New administration, new incentives to come back. 30$ mill is a drop in the pond.

I have to agree with this new sentence here. $30 million dollars may seem like a lot to you and me, but you have to remember that the net income of BP in one year is http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/STAGING/global_assets/downloads/B/bp_fourth_quarter_and_full_year_2009_results.pdf". What does $30 million matter to them?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
Char. Limit said:
I have to agree with this new sentence here. $30 million dollars may seem like a lot to you and me, but you have to remember that the net income of BP in one year is http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/STAGING/global_assets/downloads/B/bp_fourth_quarter_and_full_year_2009_results.pdf". What does $30 million matter to them?

Hmm. I suspect there are managers at BP below the CEO who are responsible for only a portion of BP. I imagine that the least-powerful manager who is still in charge of a given rig will find $30 million dollars to be very significant.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
CRGreathouse said:
Hmm. I suspect there are managers at BP below the CEO who are responsible for only a portion of BP. I imagine that the least-powerful manager who is still in charge of a given rig will find $30 million dollars to be very significant.

I confess to being ignorant of BP's organizational chart, but I would be very surprised if there was someone that was in charge of only one or two rigs who also had the power to choose where in the world they set up shop. These decisions probably come from higher up the food chain
 
  • #35
Tone of the article seems a bit sensationalist if you ask me, and misleading.

As far as I could tell two rigs have headed to Africa in the midst of this ban and five more might follow (out of 33 from one company). Not a huge deal, really. They probably need more rigs in Africa right now anyway, as new deep water plays have been opening up following a recent surge in exploration. I wonder how many rigs have made this journey before the disaster? We can't necessarily assume that they have gone there because of the ban -- they might've made the journey anyway in pursuit of a good business opportunity. Afterall, those rigs were idle before the disaster, or merely drilling exploratory holes, and so better use might be made of them offshore Africa. As far as I understand, the ban is only on any new activity; rigs that are currently producing are still allowed to produce. It's not as though that all activity in the Gulf has completely ground to a halt (as some people seem to be assuming).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
8K
  • · Replies 133 ·
5
Replies
133
Views
28K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K