1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

Exxon Plans $1B Floating Refinery

Home Forums Archive Infrastructure Exxon Plans $1B Floating Refinery

This topic contains 3 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of  Anonymous 7 years ago.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
  • #719
    Profile photo of crasch


    “…In an effort to bypass project-stalling terrestrial opposition, Exxon yesterday said it plans a $1 billion floating liquid natural-gas refinery 20 miles off New Jersey’s coast, Market Watch reports. The project, which could open by 2015, would supply enough natural gas for 5 million residential customers in New York and New Jersey. Exxon says the plant won’t be visible from shore.

    The project already has drawn favorable response from environmentalists who believe natural gas is cleaner than coal, and support the offshore location as safer from terrorism. The facility, called BlueOcean Energy, would receive twice-weekly seaborne deliveries of liquid natural gas, convert it to natural gas and pipe it to New Jersey. Exxon plans three similar refineries around the world….”

    Profile photo of

    Seems like a good initiative. Funny though that twenty miles out from shore they still have to wait for approval from the bureaucrats.

    Nuclear power generation is another industry that could be operated off shore. Should the governmenmt allow it that is.

    Profile photo of Thorizan

    Up to 200 miles is in the Exclusive Economic Zone… and more if you are still on the shelf that makes your country/continent. Fun times. That… and the 20+ miles of piping that goes back to shore should probably be looked at by someone before it starts being laid.

    Profile photo of

    This seems a bit misleading for several reasons:

    1. 1 Billion dollars is about the cost of a single oil platform, so the technology and value of it isn’t really that great.

    2. California, New York and others had already been proposed as land-based liquid natural gas (LNG) terminals. Naturally every NIMBY (“not in my back yard”) does not want a huge gas terminal in their back yard.

    So really all it’s doing is putting a land-based gas terminal at sea and piping the results on-shore. Yes, it’s a way to avoid the NIMBY aspects of putting one on land, but in terms of technology or other significance, it doesn’t seem like much of a big deal.

    FWIW natural gas is still a fossil fuel (or at least were Hydrocarbons that were previously trapped underground and were not in the atmosphere). It’s cleaner than coal, but doesn’t really help global warming all that much compared to wind, solar, wave, etc., energy. Using natural gas still puts lots of CO2 into the air; not as much as coal per unit energy extracted, but still lots of CO2.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)

The forum ‘Infrastructure’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Posted on at


Written by