ExxonMobil Spring Campus

[nonenadazilch]

If someone takes a snapshot of proven reserves they read someplace then divide that by how much oil is consumed every day and comes up with a number they are promoting an economic fallacy because the proven reserves could be twice that much 10 years later depending on technology, access to untapped resources, and new discoveries and prices.

 

I agree but further add that there's a significant variable that must make an increasingly large impact on oil consumption: federal legislation and global treaties aiming to reduce consumption and/or increase conservation.  I enjoy the celebration on here in what's more or less a gathering space for the spectator sport of local developments.  But just as surely, I hope we don't do so without other heavy considerations.

 

This naturally progresses to the topic of human-induced changes to atmospheric composition and - embarrassingly, in this country only - just as easily digresses into compulsory exchanges between political encampments.  Recognizing that the hyper-politicization of the subject likely reaches some within this community, I post not to incite or solicit contempt but, rather, only to appeal to common sense:  modern society and all its accoutrements ride forward on the backs of science, technology, and the painstaking efforts of scientists through the ages.  If one agrees with such a notion even slightly, by corollary they also acknowledge, unwittingly or not, that the same science and engineering methods that prove the ways Exxon delivers oil to hungry economies have equal foundation in the science methods climatologists use to prove that natural cycles of climate change are being altered by human carbon consumption.  Climate change is controversial here in the US only because idealogues with vile ulterior motives manage to manipulate the naivety and/or ignorance of the general (American) public into indifference at best and steadfast disbelief at worst.  While scientists debate the degrees of finite-ness of fossil fuel reserves, there's no debate in the rational world that the increasing rates of industrial carbon extraction and burning are accelerating towards the infusion of dire levels of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere.  Again, and for brevity's sake, I don't want to extend into denouncement nor soliloquy but if Exxon and its equally profit-hungry counterparts see this planet's fossil fuel reserves only as deep pots of cash to drill for unabated, our generation surely reaps the windfalls but only at unforgiveable consequences to our grandkids and theirs beyond.

 

 

[livincinco]

The question of whether a quantity of oil reserves exist that can be extracted and whether they should be extracted are two completely separate topics. And aren't both completely separate topics to the status of construction of the Exxon campus?

[ArchFan]

I agree but further add that there's a significant variable that must make an increasingly large impact on oil consumption: federal legislation and global treaties aiming to reduce consumption and/or increase conservation.  I enjoy the celebration on here in what's more or less a gathering space for the spectator sport of local developments.  But just as surely, I hope we don't do so without other heavy considerations.

 

This naturally progresses to the topic of human-induced changes to atmospheric composition and - embarrassingly, in this country only - just as easily digresses into compulsory exchanges between political encampments.  Recognizing that the hyper-politicization of the subject likely reaches some within this community, I post not to incite or solicit contempt but, rather, only to appeal to common sense:  modern society and all its accoutrements ride forward on the backs of science, technology, and the painstaking efforts of scientists through the ages.  If one agrees with such a notion even slightly, by corollary they also acknowledge, unwittingly or not, that the same science and engineering methods that prove the ways Exxon delivers oil to hungry economies have equal foundation in the science methods climatologists use to prove that natural cycles of climate change are being altered by human carbon consumption.  Climate change is controversial here in the US only because idealogues with vile ulterior motives manage to manipulate the naivety and/or ignorance of the general (American) public into indifference at best and steadfast disbelief at worst.  While scientists debate the degrees of finite-ness of fossil fuel reserves, there's no debate in the rational world that the increasing rates of industrial carbon extraction and burning are accelerating towards the infusion of dire levels of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere.  Again, and for brevity's sake, I don't want to extend into denouncement nor soliloquy but if Exxon and its equally profit-hungry counterparts see this planet's fossil fuel reserves only as deep pots of cash to drill for unabated, our generation surely reaps the windfalls but only at unforgiveable consequences to our grandkids and theirs beyond.

 

I am sympathetic to your point of view.  Full disclosure: I work for an oil company and have a retirement nest egg that consists mostly of compensation from working for (nasty, evil) oil companies.  

 

OTOH, I think that as a civilization, we should be working harder toward moving beyond burning hydrocarbons for fuel.  I do believe that human activities are contributing to climate change, but even if that weren't true, I would still support moving away from fossil fuels.  I am willing to put my mouth where my money is:  i would be willing to be taxed to fund a government program (like the space race in the 60s) to move us faster away from fossil fuels.  

 

I have seen enough of oil-company executives to know that they are human beings, subject to human failings.  And ... while I do get annoyed with outsiders painting me and them with a broad brush, I do think that we as a society need to move forward.  The most disappointing thing to me currently is that the public at large seems to expect oil companies and their executives to act like parents and take care of all of us.  That is unrealistic.  Not because they are evil, they are just focused on their own lives.  I kinda hate to say it, but if we don't have visionary individuals in the private sector who will lead us forward, we may nee to rely on government.  I know some here will not like that idea, but we need leadership from somewhere.  I happy to have it from one source or another.

[jt16]

I am sympathetic to your point of view. Full disclosure: I work for an oil company and have a retirement nest egg that consists mostly of compensation from working for (nasty, evil) oil companies.

OTOH, I think that as a civilization, we should be working harder toward moving beyond burning hydrocarbons for fuel. I do believe that human activities are contributing to climate change, but even if that weren't true, I would still support moving away from fossil fuels. I am willing to put my mouth where my money is: i would be willing to be taxed to fund a government program (like the space race in the 60s) to move us faster away from fossil fuels.

I have seen enough of oil-company executives to know that they are human beings, subject to human failings. And ... while I do get annoyed with outsiders painting me and them with a broad brush, I do think that we as a society need to move forward. The most disappointing thing to me currently is that the public at large seems to expect oil companies and their executives to act like parents and take care of all of us. That is unrealistic. Not because they are evil, they are just focused on their own lives. I kinda hate to say it, but if we don't have visionary individuals in the private sector who will lead us forward, we may nee to rely on government. I know some here will not like that idea, but we need leadership from somewhere. I happy to have it from one source or another.

Government more visionary than private sector? Uh, no thanks. Obama didn't make electric cars work, Elon Musk did. NASA can't take us to space without blowing up every fifth time, but the private sector is figuring it out on 1/1000th the budget.

[mollusk]

OTOH, I think that as a civilization, we should be working harder toward moving beyond burning hydrocarbons for fuel.  I do believe that human activities are contributing to climate change, but even if that weren't true, I would still support moving away from fossil fuels.  I am willing to put my mouth where my money is:  i would be willing to be taxed to fund a government program (like the space race in the 60s) to move us faster away from fossil fuels.  

 

 

Agreed.  All politics aside (why science is a political football is another question for another time), it's just not a good use of the resource to burn it.

[ArchFan]

Government more visionary than private sector? Uh, no thanks. Obama didn't make electric cars work, Elon Musk did. NASA can't take us to space without blowing up every fifth time, but the private sector is figuring it out on 1/1000th the budget.

 

but, that's not what i'm trying to say :-)  all endeavors that involve humans organizing to work together are subject to the failings inherent in human beings.  i am not someone who wants to promote socialism.  however, i think it is good for us to recognize that all projects that involve people working together can wind up involving similar things, good and bad.  it doesn't matter if its a government or a church or whatever. That said, it is still good for us to try to work together to accomplish things than we cannot by ourselves.

[ArchFan]

and, while I admire people like Elon Musk, they could not have achieved what they did without the cooperation of other people in society.  I loved reading Ayn Rand when I was a kid, but I think her point of view was idealistic to the point of being childishly simplistic.  Frankly, her philosophy was as unrealistic as the communist philosophy she rejected.

[Mab]

http://www.read-king.com/sites/default/files/readking_exxonmobil_0.pdf

[IronTiger]

I thought I remember reading or hearing that the time alternative fuel research is done is during when times oil companies are doing well, and the economy's good.

It does make sense: if oil companies can afford R&D they will hire them (you don't want to see oil companies contract hiring), and oil companies want to keep making money in energy.

Meanwhile, smaller companies could also try to develop alternative fuels, spurred on by a good economy.

The role for government in this case would be to not to enact effectively anti-oil rules and dampen the economy (thus throwing a spanner in the works for alternative fuels too), but to encourage a great economy and everything should fall into place.

* also a friendly reminder that most of alt. energy research is done by Big Oil

Edited December 24, 2014 by IronTiger

[toxtethogrady]

Government more visionary than private sector? Uh, no thanks. Obama didn't make electric cars work, Elon Musk did. NASA can't take us to space without blowing up every fifth time, but the private sector is figuring it out on 1/1000th the budget.

 

Actually, that's false, as the last couple of private-venture rockets blew up on launch. Government seems to be ahead in this race.

 

Also, while you're hating on government, I hope you're appreciating the government-created internet that's allowing you to do so here.

[BigFootsSocks]

Actually, that's false, as the last couple of private-venture rockets blew up on launch. Government seems to be ahead in this race.

Also, while you're hating on government, I hope you're appreciating the government-created internet that's allowing you to do so here.

SpaceX's rocket was a modified version that had significantly reduced power and was designed to go into a fail-safe mode

Orbital Science and Virgin Galactic were actual mistakes but it's not like NASA hasn't had a few mistakes either.

All this to say, don't knock on the private aerospace industry because Elon Musk is leading the way while NASA gets screwed over by a military hungry congress.

Also I have no idea the purpose of these posts. Whatever.

[Timoric]

-

Edited July 8, 2019 by Timoric

[WshfulThnkn]

Does anyone have any current pics of the new Exxon HQ?  I live out of state and would love to see how it turned out.  Thnx

[bobruss]

They won't let anyone close enough to get good pictures. Maybe someone from inside could leak some close ups.

[jstigall]

Can't someone with a Quad Copter get a good shot?

 

Edited January 29, 2015 by jstigall

[bobruss]

They might have attack drones set up on the perimeter to keep out incoming video copters.

They are under lock down up there. Langley has nothing on Exxons security.

[cloud713]

I think you mean the White House has nothing on Exxons security.. Heh. Still can't believe that idiot crashed a Phantom on the roof. Might of just ruined it for the rest of us and mine is literally in the mail right now on the way to my house. Ah well, I'll try to enjoy it while I can.

[Luminare]

I think you mean the White House has nothing on Exxons security.. Heh. Still can't believe that idiot crashed a Phantom on the roof. Might of just ruined it for the rest of us and mine is literally in the mail right now on the way to my house. Ah well, I'll try to enjoy it while I can.

 

If you look at current legislation that is coming down the pike there are actually in favor of using drones, but it's simply regulated. Most cities will simply ask you to get a license to be able to drive one, you are aware of others while using, it can't leave your field of vision, can't go over 500', and you can't fly it at night.

[LTAWACS]

What happens if you already have one?

[rechlin]

LTAWACS,

 

Nothing.  Rules haven't yet changed for personal use.  All they've done now is legalize it for commercial use, with many of the same restrictions as for personal use, plus the requirement of a license.

[LTAWACS]

Oh **** I hope it's true!

 

I do and I dont. Having a company of this size so far from the city core is still not a good idea.

[toxtethogrady]

If you look at current legislation that is coming down the pike there are actually in favor of using drones, but it's simply regulated. Most cities will simply ask you to get a license to be able to drive one, you are aware of others while using, it can't leave your field of vision, can't go over 500', and you can't fly it at night.

 

It's actually an FAA regulation. It's fairly generous for most of us, as few of us are going to be flying drones past 500 feet above ground and we mostly prefer to have line of sight on them. So it's a good thing for the hobbyist - and certainly better than no right to use.

[Luminare]

It's actually an FAA regulation. It's fairly generous for most of us, as few of us are going to be flying drones past 500 feet above ground and we mostly prefer to have line of sight on them. So it's a good thing for the hobbyist - and certainly better than no right to use.

 

It actually took me by surprise! For once they are actually properly accessing the technology and putting proper regulations in place that both restrict and benefit.....it's like our government is trying to serve the people or something kinda weird.

[toxtethogrady]

And it was certainly better than their previous paralysis.

[cspwal]

New pictures of the Exxon campus with pictures of a suspended meeting center above the main entrance...it looks nerve wracking/awesome

 

 

http://swamplot.com/snuck-preview-of-the-exxonmobil-campuss-energy-center-the-glass-front-gate-with-the-hovering-cube/2015-04-02/

 

[monarch]

^^^ oh my!  dramatic, beautiful, and expensive....

[The Pragmatist]

That's cool looking. Like a spaceship above the woods.

[wxman]

I found out some 'disturbing' information about this project. One of the CEO's of the company paid between $375,000 and $500,000 to have a 40 inch diameter tree moved on the property and have it replanted next to his window. The person, a contractor/friend, told me that and I can assure you, he is in the know...

 

If that is true, shame on them. They make a huge stink about their profits tanking with oil prices but they have money for this.

[cloud713]

I found out some 'disturbing' information about this project. One of the CEO's of the company paid between $375,000 and $500,000 to have a 40 inch diameter tree moved on the property and have it replanted next to his window. The person, a contractor/friend, told me that and I can assure you, he is in the know...

 

If that is true, shame on them. They make a huge stink about their profits tanking with oil prices but they have money for this.

lmao.. another Exxon Tree urban legend...

[quietstorm]

I found out some 'disturbing' information about this project. One of the CEO's of the company paid between $375,000 and $500,000 to have a 40 inch diameter tree moved on the property and have it replanted next to his window. The person, a contractor/friend, told me that and I can assure you, he is in the know...

 

If that is true, shame on them. They make a huge stink about their profits tanking with oil prices but they have money for this.

 

I doubt this...my mother worked for Exxon then 'ExxonMobil' (the old timers refused to call it that) for 30 years and always talked about how 'frugal' (i.e., cheap) the company was .