Saturday, April 28, 2012

‘If I Wanted America to Fail …’

Here’s an abbreviated version of a video by Free Market America on administration policies that the group says are undermining domestic energy production, economic growth, jobs and America’s overall prosperity.  Of course, the mention of energy caught our ear. Take a look:

A longer version has gone viral, with more than 1.2 million views. Both versions make valid points about the need for abundant, affordable energy and the threat to America’s economy when that is denied – as well as the drag on jobs and growth posed by unnecessary regulation.

“If I wanted America to fail …” is a rhetorical device, of course. But it underscores ways America’s economic potential may be undercut by well-intentioned activism and political agendas.


View the original article here

Hey, Jay Carney, You Forgot Something!

POLITICO Pro Energy reports that while talking to reporters about crucifixion comments by EPA’s Region 6 administrator, White House spokesman Jay Carney assured that the administration has “a commitment to ensure natural gas is an essential part of our future.”

Hold on. Something missing here … oil!

Sure, natural gas is an essential part of our future. But Carney must’ve had the Roman legions on his mind when he neglected to mention oil as equally important.  We’ll remind him:

Actually, by usage, oil is the most essential piece of America’s energy portfolio, supplying about 37 percent of our energy right now, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Natural gas is second at about 25 percent.Oil will be America’s energy of the future, too. EIA says it will supply about 35 percent of our energy in 2035 (natural gas still second at 25 percent).

All energy sources are important now and in the future -- we’ll need a true all-of-the-above strategy. Any discussion of America’s energy policy needs to start with America’s energy reality, and that needs to start with oil.  While we would certainly welcome an actual commitment to natural gas, the Administration also needs to be committed to securing our liquid fuel needs, and we can do it, we are not energy poor, we have the resources and the technology to develop them safely.  This is what energy progress looks like:


View the original article here

Our Energy and Economic Crossroads

During a recent conference call with reporters API Chief Economist John Felmy said the country is at a “crossroads of energy and economic policy.” That’s quite a crossroads. Chad Moutray, chief economist at the National Association of Manufacturers, pointed out that manufacturing has added 462,000 net new jobs since 2010, and that continued growth hinges on energy and regulatory policy. So, where do we stand?

The administration’s energy policy is a muddle, as IPAA President and CEO Barry Russell argues in this Roll Call piece:

“Obama calls to expedite infrastructure projects, but in the wake of rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline. Obama claims increased oil and natural gas production on his watch, but then follows up with accusations that oil companies are profiting at the expense of the American people. Obama repeatedly calls for an ‘all of the above’ energy strategy, but then singles out the oil and natural gas industry for new regulations and targeted tax attacks.”

OK. Not so great. How about regulatory policy?

Last week’s new EPA rule on emissions from oil and natural gas development had positive elements – for example, delaying industry compliance with some costly and labor-intensive requirements until 2015. Still, overall, the administration’s regulatory approach hasn’t been encouraging, chiefly seen in policies that limit access to federal areas onshore and offshore.

Fuel Fix reports that deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is getting busier, but take a look at the actual numbers:

“The government awarded 163 deep-water drilling permits for the Gulf in 2009. The number dropped to 74 in 2010, but has climbed since then to 79 in 2011 and 44 through March of this year.”

And:

“[Analyst Robert] Kessler also noted that the time required for approval of exploration and development plans is still 150 days on average, compared to 54 days before the moratorium, another indicator of the added expense and challenge since the spill.”

Felmy cautioned that added regulatory layers “can slow development” of America’s vast energy resources. “Look at the totality of all EPA rules,” he said. “It really is an onslaught.” Moutray said the economic recovery is tenuous, and that the manufacturing sector is looking for broad energy options and sensible, stable policy from government:

“Energy is critical. We need affordable sources of energy to remain competitive globally. … We need an all-of-the-above approach that doesn’t pick winners and losers, that stresses the ‘all’ and not just favored projects. … We must have as many tools as possible for energy.”

Energy is the linchpin for economic growth – especially in the manufacturing sector. Developing energy from shale in Pennsylvania, North Dakota and Texas has produced jobs and a rising economic tide capable of lifting state and regional economies. Ohio and other states are poised to benefit as well.

The question is whether Washington will allow that kind of activity to go forward, or will it sap the momentum with red-tape delays and new layers of restrictive regulation, possibly duplicating effective state regulatory efforts? Will the administration continue to threaten higher taxes on an industry that pays its fair share already and is ready to do much more on energy and jobs? Will it get serious about domestic oil production, onshore and offshore, and end its obstruction of the Keystone XL pipeline?

As Felmy noted, these are components of an energy strategy that could see the United States reach energy self-sufficiency through North American resources in just 12 years.

Good questions for consideration at the crossroads.


View the original article here

Friday, April 27, 2012

Rhetorical Engagement on the Keystone XL Pipeline

Rounding up some of the latest rhetoric by Keystone XL pipeline opponents – separating fact from fiction (and utter fantasy) – while striving for an informed energy discussion. It’s not easy.

Let’s start with a great big fact:

The U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) reports that oil and natural gas supply 62 percent of the energy we currently use. In 2035, EIA says oil and gas still will supply about 60 percent of the energy we use.

That’s the energy reality, according to the government. We run our economy and our lives on oil and natural gas. It’s the energy of today and tomorrow. Yes, America will need all energy sources in the years to come, but any notion that we can embark on an “off-oil” strategy without severe economic and social repercussions is uninformed, disingenuous or, as suggested above, fantasy.

Against that backdrop let’s review a couple of recent energy-related offerings – one that links the Keystone XL’s construction and Canadian oil sands production to the possible destruction of other cultures and the environment. Another serves up some warmed-over gasoline exports myths.

Post #1:

“It is undeniable that Keystone XL would bring about immense devastation to other cultures. Consider the members of Canada's First Nations groups, who have been more vocal about the need to stop the pipeline than almost anyone else. If Keystone XL were approved, their way of life would enter a rapid downward spiral and ultimately collapse.”  

Actually, this is deniable. First, a number of pipelines already crisscross energy-rich Alberta:

Click on the map for a larger view, and you’ll see the red dotted line representing the Keystone XL follows a path already taken by other pipelines in Canada. The idea that the Keystone XL would threaten anyone as described in the post is ridiculous.

Second, click on the link in the post and you’ll see that opposition from the First Nations groups is mostly directed toward a pipeline that would go west from Alberta to the coast, a proposal that has gained traction as Canada started thinking about other customers for its oil – following the Obama administration’s Keystone XL rejection.

Let’s go on. The post makes claims about environmental devastation from the proposed pipeline: 

“In order to exploit a region's tar sands, new roads must be built, enormous machines have to be brought in, and, most harmfully, every tree in the surrounding region needs to be cleared or burned. A population that relies on nature will be totally unable to continue to sustain itself if oil companies wipe out almost all biodiversity and bring in dangerous chemicals and pollution.”

If the author had done some homework, it would’ve been clear that Canadians are dead serious about protecting their environment. Clear-cutting and/or burning trees? By law oil sands development areas have to be restored to their natural state by companies operating there. One, Suncor, has developed a way to reclaim its tailings ponds, as well as a process that will eliminate the need for tailings ponds altogether. The company has turned one former tailings pond into a lush meadow, with hundreds of thousands of tree seedlings planted.

Similar environmental consciousness is being shown by other companies. Last week there was this story about Shell’s efforts to offset its oil sands footprint with the purchase and preservation of acres of forest.

One more from Post #1:

“Most infuriatingly, it is not even as though the U.S. needs tar sands oil or else it will not be able to fuel ambulances or power schools. The reality is that Americans use a huge amount of energy to perpetuate inefficiency and wastefulness. Furthermore, enormous reserves of potential renewable energy go unused every day because individuals and legislatures refuse to make sufficient investments. In other words, by continuing to support tar sands oil (as we already started doing several years ago with the construction of other pipelines from Canada) we are choosing to decimate other cultures and livelihoods before even fully investing in robust efficiency standards and renewables.”

A distillation of the above: The United States isn’t spending enough money on improving efficiency or developing other fuel sources.

Yet, according to EIA’s 2011 energy outlook report, the U.S. used about half as much energy for every dollar of GDP as it did in 1980. Meanwhile, investments in greenhouse gas-reducing technologies start with the oil and natural gas industry, which spent $71 billion on these between 2000 and 2010 – almost as much as all other private industries combined ($74 billion) and nearly double what the federal government spent ($43 billion). As for renewables, energy analyst/blogger Geoff Styles offers perspective:

“[Renewables] produce electricity rather than liquid fuels, and less than 1% of US electricity is generated from oil today, compared to more than 10% in 1980. Electricity from renewable and nuclear power doesn't compete with imported oil or any other kind of oil; it competes with domestic energy sources like coal and natural gas, most of which now comes from conventional and unconventional gas fields, rather than as a byproduct of producing oil. So by all means let’s have a conversation about renewables in the context of reducing greenhouse gas emissions today and displacing oil from transportation when there are tens of millions of electric vehicles on the road in the future, but in terms of oil prices now and in the near future, they are a rhetorical diversion.”

Quickly, Post #2 incorrectly argues that crude delivered by the Keystone XL would be refined for export to Europe and Latin America. This has been discussed here and here. EIA weighs in on exports and gasoline prices, here.

The Keystone XL enjoys broad U.S. support, demonstrated in poll after poll after poll. A majority in both houses of Congress supports the pipeline. Nebraska’s governor, who had concerns last fall, enthusiastically supports it now. It’s time to stop erecting phony arguments and flimsy excuses as obstacles to the project’s promise of stable energy and jobs.


View the original article here

The Right and Wrong Side of the Energy Divide

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar talked about a divide in America between the “real energy world and the imagined energy world” during a speech Tuesday in Washington. He’s got that right – but it’s not like the administration is on the right side of that divide. Consider:

It dismisses calls for increased access, saying it takes years to develop oil and natural gas resources, and then takes credit for increased production.It says it wants more oil and natural gas when in reality its policies set back production in the all-important Gulf of Mexico and on federal western lands.It says 75 percent of America’s offshore resources are open for development when in reality 87 percent of areas are off-limits.It says oil and natural gas are the energy of the past even though they currently supply 62 percent of the energy we use and in 2035 will still supply about 60 percent.It repeatedly suggests that America is an energy pauper, when in reality the country has tremendous energy wealth, with ample supplies onshore and offshore.It claims the oil and natural gas industry doesn’t pay its fair share in taxes when in reality it sends $86 million a day to the U.S. Treasury in rents, royalties and income tax payments, and its companies rank 1-2-3 on Forbes’ recent list of those paying the most in income taxes. 

Now, the Interior secretary’ s speech was on-target in some ways. Salazar said that “overwhelmingly, Americans agree on energy.” They do indeed:

84 percent believe increasing domestic oil and natural gas production could enhance the country’s energy security, according to a Harris Interactive poll last month.64 percent in that same poll said they believe some in Washington are intentionally delaying domestic oil and natural gas development, potentially hurting the economy and leading to higher consumer energy costs.Anywhere from 56 percent to nearly 70 percent in other polls say they support construction of the Keystone XL pipeline that would bring upwards of 830,000 barrels of crude oil per day from Canada to U.S. refiners – which the administration continues to obstruct while pretending others are at fault for the delay. Here’s video of the secretary doing just that after Tuesday’s speech (courtesy The Daily Caller):

More Salazar: 

“Americans want to cut our reliance on imported oil. They know that a lot of factors affect gas prices – including world markets and international events – and that, unfortunately, there’s no silver bullet in the near term.”

No question, world crude oil markets play the biggest role in prices at the pump – 76 percent of the cost right now – and affecting near-term change is problematic. But market signals do matter. And it’s time to take charge of our energy future by choosing the right policies to affect the long-term energy equation. For too long opponents of accessing available U.S. resources have used the “no silver bullet” line to block sound energy decisions – like drilling in remote Alaska, which by now would be an important part of the energy mix if it had been undertaken when it first began to be debated more than a decade ago. 

Salazar once more:

“The energy world is changing … Whether it’s our oil and gas technology, our solar power plants, or our auto manufacturers, the pace of American innovation is staggering. The U.S. is determined to lead in the new energy world. So it’s no longer a question of whether you support renewable energy or conventional energy, or whether you favor the environment or the economy. The American people have decided to take an all-of-the above approach.”

The United States needs all of its energy resources, but a real all-of-the-above approach must do more than pay lip service to oil and natural gas production – today’s energy and tomorrow’s. The challenges are daunting, but historically Americans have risen to meet challenges with the help of strong leadership – in contrast to the rhetoric of resignation and powerlessness that frequently comes from the current administration. API President and CEO Jack Gerard, speaking last month at a congressional hearing on energy:

“With sound policy and bold leadership, we can put this country’s vast resources to work to change the current energy equation. … A strategy that confidently deploys resources here at home will send a clear message to global markets that the United States is serious about affecting supply. To the American people it will say help’s on the way. … With the right policies and strong leadership, we can secure our energy future instead of surrendering it to outside forces.”


View the original article here

There He Goes Again…

There has been a lot of good analysis of the president’s latest pursuit of alleged manipulation in the oil trading markets. The Council on Foreign Relations’ Blake Clayton makes a number of good points here, and energy blogger Robert Rapier notes the two-way risk inherent in commodities trading, here.

What’s clear is that the president’s concern isn’t new (see 2008, 2009 and 2011), and that White House officials had trouble connecting today’s announcement with anything substantive, as can be seen in a succession of tweets by Yahoo! News’ White House correspondent, Olivier Knox:

“White House punts on whether today's Pres Obama announcement re: oil speculation would have any impact on gas prices. (cont’d)”

“(cont'd) "We would leave that to outside analysts to disentangle,” senior administration officials tells reporters on conference call.”

“White House also refused to describe impact/extent of enforcement of laws re: oil speculation over past year."

“In short: White House won't describe extent of the problem of oil speculation, won't predict impact of today's announcement.”

But we digress. What caught our ear was the president plowing some familiar rhetorical turf, with a couple of demonstrably misleading riffs. Presidential Riff 1:

“The problem is we use more than 20 percent of the world’s oil and we only have 2 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves.”

This is a favorite of the president’s but it’s simply misleading, using a technical classification of one kind of oil reserve to camouflage the fact that the United States is sitting on approximately 200 billion barrels of oil, which the president never mentions, discussed here and here. This line earned “two Pinocchios” from the Washington Post Fact Checker back in March and probably deserves three Pinocchios now, because the White House keeps using it.

Presidential Riff 2:

“Even if we drilled every square inch of this country right now, we’d still have to rely disproportionately on other countries for their oil.”

False. According to the Wood Mackenzie energy consulting firm, if the United States pursued a pro-development strategy that included more domestic drilling – offshore, in remote Alaska and other places – as well as a stronger partnership with Canada (including the Keystone XL pipeline), we could see 100 percent of our liquid fuel needs supplied here and from Canada by 2024.

The real problem here is an administration that continues talking as if the United States is energy poor when in fact we’re energy rich. The president talks about an all-of-the-above approach to energy but has done little to support and enhance oil and natural gas, which supply more than 60 percent of our energy now and will continue to supply about 55 percent of it in 2035.


View the original article here

No More Excuses on Keystone XL

In response to a question about the Keystone XL pipeline back in January, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters: “[I]t is a fallacy to suggest that the president should sign into law something when there isn’t even an alternate route identified in Nebraska …” Carney also said the then-delay in reviewing the project was “a result of concerns in Nebraska about the route … and how it would affect the aquifer there.”

That was then. Now it appears the White House statements were really excuses, not concerns.

Indeed, last year the State Department’s exhaustive Keystone XL environmental review concluded that the project would be the safest pipeline ever built in the United States. The department also determined that the project’s proposed safety mechanisms and procedures would protect the Ogallala Aquifer.

Unfortunately, concerns in Nebraska handed the administration an excuse for more delay. Pipeline builder TransCanada responded by working on a relatively small detour to avoid Nebraska’s sensitive Sand Hills region, which was unveiled this week:

This followed the Nebraska legislature’s approval of a bill to allow the state to move forward with a new Keystone XL route, on a 44-5 vote that was pretty much a slam dunk. Gov. Dave Heineman, who had voiced concerns about the original route, promptly signed the measure into law. This welcome news means the last major objection to Keystone XL has been resolved. Consider:

Americans support construction of the Keystone XL by nearly a 2-1 margin, according to a recent Gallup poll.A bipartisan, veto-proof majority in the U.S. House of Representatives voted to support construction of Keystone XL, the fifth time the House has backed the project. Last month, 56 U.S. senators voted in favor of building the Keystone XL.More than 80 percent of Americans believe U.S. policies should support the use of oil from Canada’s oil sands.A University of Texas poll shows that Americans overwhelmingly support more energy production.According to the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, pipelines are the “safest and most-effective” way of transporting oil and natural gas.With unemployment still above 8 percent nationwide, the Keystone XL not only would create thousands of new jobs but also would help preserve jobs at U.S. refineries and production sites.While there are many factors that affect the price of gasoline families use to fill up their tanks, approving the Keystone XL would send a strong market signal that more supply is on the way, helping put downward pressure on the global price of crude oil, which accounts for 76 percent of the price paid at the pump. The pipeline could bring upwards of 830,000 barrels per day of Canadian oil from Alberta to U.S. refineries, with approximately 25 percent of the pipeline’s capacity used to deliver oil from North Dakota and Montana.

Let’s recap: A majority in both houses of Congress supports the Keystone XL. The Nebraska legislature supports the Keystone XL. The governor of Nebraska supports the Keystone XL. The American people support the Keystone XL.

With this pipeline we can have a healthy environment and a growing economy. We can strengthen our important energy relationship with Canada and help make our energy future more secure. The environmental impacts of building the Keystone XL will be minimal, while the benefits – in terms of jobs, economic growth, and energy security – will be enormous.

Politicians are known as masters at creating excuses, but when it comes to the Keystone XL pipeline, there are simply no excuses left for keeping it on hold.


View the original article here

EPA Emissions Rule Shows Improvements

It will take some time to fully digest the EPA’s new rule governing emissions from oil and natural gas production, including hydraulic fracturing, but it’s clear the agency heard industry’s concerns and worked to improve the regulation from its preliminary version.

Significantly, companies will have until 2015 to comply with some of the requirements of the new rule. Industry had maintained more time was needed to develop the equipment needed for compliance and to train workers to use it. Howard Feldman, API’s director of regulatory and scientific affairs on the final rule:

“The industry has led efforts to reduce emissions by developing new technologies that were adopted in the rule.  EPA has made some improvements in the rules that allow our companies to continue reducing emissions while producing the oil and natural gas our country needs. This is a large and complicated rulemaking for an industry so critical to the economy, and we need to thoroughly review the final rule to fully understand its impacts.”


View the original article here

Apr 25, i need one chance to work on offshore as radio operator

by antony
(tamilnadu.)

i am antony. i have completed indian GMDSS and have indian CDC. i have been working in oil jetty for last two year. i attend two offshore company interview. but they need offshore experience. everybody needs offshor experience, bum nobody give to one chance ..hw can i get job? d a nmd

Click here to post comments.

Join in and write your own page! It's easy to do. How?
Simply click here to return to Rig Radio Operators.



View the original article here

Mr. President, Approve This Pipeline

Fox News reports that EPA’s Region 6 administrator has apologized for comparing his agency’s enforcement strategy to Roman crucifixion. Of course, the 2010 remarks by EPA’s Al Armendariz, were captured on video, which you can see here.

Despite Armendariz’s apology, U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, which is in the EPA region that Armendariz administers, is investigating. Inhofe said the crucifixion comments suggest a campaign of “threats” and “intimidation.”

Certainly, one poorly chosen analogy from a single regional administrator doesn’t indict an entire agency – though it’s concerning that this fellow, with his apparent zest for enforcement, has had oversight for the energy-rich Eagle Ford and Barnett shale areas of Texas. Talk about a chilling effect.

We hope that Armendariz’s a... more »

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar talked about a divide in America between the “real energy world and the imagined energy world” during a speech Tuesday in Washington. He’s got that right – but it’s not like the administration is on the right side of that divide. Consider:

It dismisses calls for increased access, saying it takes years to develop oil and natural gas resources, and then takes credit for increased production.It says it wants more oil and natural gas when in reality its policies set back production in the all-important Gulf of Mexico and on federal western lands.It says 75 percent of America’s offshore resources are open for development when in reality 87 percent of areas are off-limits.It says oil and natural gas are the energy of the past even though they... more »

Rounding up some of the latest rhetoric by Keystone XL pipeline opponents – separating fact from fiction (and utter fantasy) – while striving for an informed energy discussion. It’s not easy.

Let’s start with a great big fact:

The U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) reports that oil and natural gas supply 62 percent of the energy we currently use. In 2035, EIA says oil and gas still will supply about 60 percent of the energy we use.

That’s the energy reality, according to the government. We run our economy and our lives on oil and natural gas. It’s the energy of today and tomorrow. Yes, America will need all energy sources in the years to come, but any notion that we can embark on an “off-oil” strategy without severe economic and social repercussions is uninformed, disingenuou... more »

During a recent conference call with reporters API Chief Economist John Felmy said the country is at a “crossroads of energy and economic policy.” That’s quite a crossroads. Chad Moutray, chief economist at the National Association of Manufacturers, pointed out that manufacturing has added 462,000 net new jobs since 2010, and that continued growth hinges on energy and regulatory policy. So, where do we stand?

The administration’s energy policy is a muddle, as IPAA President and CEO Barry Russell argues in this Roll Call piece:

“Obama calls to expedite infrastructure projects, but in the wake of rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline. Obama claims increased oil and natural gas production on his watch, but then follows up with accusations that oil companies are profiting at the expense... more »

In response to a question about the Keystone XL pipeline back in January, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters: “[I]t is a fallacy to suggest that the president should sign into law something when there isn’t even an alternate route identified in Nebraska …” Carney also said the then-delay in reviewing the project was “a result of concerns in Nebraska about the route … and how it would affect the aquifer there.”

That was then. Now it appears the White House statements were really excuses, not concerns.

Indeed, last year the State Department’s exhaustive Keystone XL environmental review concluded that the project would be the safest pipeline ever built in the United States. The department also determined that the project’s proposed safety mechanisms and procedures wou... more »


View the original article here

Forbes: Big Oil = Biggest Taxpayers

Check out this informative post by Forbes’ Christopher Helman, who notes that Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on the magazine’s list of companies that paid the most in income taxes in 2011 were … energy companies.

That might surprise some people, given White House rhetoric about oil and natural gas companies not paying their “fair share.” It turns out Big Oil is the country’s Biggest Taxpayer. Here’s how Forbes’ data looks in a chart:

As you can see by the blue line, ExxonMobil ($27.3 billion), Chevron ($17.4 billion) and ConocoPhillips ($10.6 billion) occupy the top three spots in Forbes’ income-tax-paying ranking. Occidental Petroleum comes in at No. 18 ($2.9 billion).

Now check the chart’s red line. It shows that all four energy companies’ effective tax rates topped 40 percent – ExxonMobil 42 percent, Chevron 43.3 percent, ConocoPhillips 45.6 percent and Occidental 40.2 percent. Helman:

“And income taxes isn’t even the half of it–literally. Exxon also recorded more than $70 billion last year in sales taxes ($33.5 billion) and other taxes and duties ($43.5 billion). But none of that will matter to the president if gasoline prices keep climbing. Having been blocked on his Big Oil tax hike, don’t be surprised if in the heat of the summer driving season he calls for a windfall profits tax on oil companies. The very concept implies that the companies are earning an unfairly high return. Sure Exxon’s and Chevron’s net incomes are high. But so are their revenues! Exxon’s revenues were $486 billion and Chevron’s were $254 billion. That implies an average net margin of just 10%.”

Helman continues:

“Compare that with the $33 billion that Apple made in 2011 on $128 billion in revenues and Microsoft‘s $23 billion income on $72 billion in sales. Those margins are 26% and 32%. And yet Apple enjoyed a low effective tax rate of 25% and paid a relatively meager $4 billion in income taxes, putting it in ninth place on our list of the biggest U.S. corporate taxpayers, while Microsoft had an effective rate of just 16% and paid $5.3 billion, placing it sixth.”

The point is that America’s oil and natural gas companies pay their fair share, more than $86 million a day in rents, royalties and income taxes, yet regularly are singled out by the administration for tax increases – the unfairness of which doesn’t seem to register with a White House that spends so much time talking about fairness.


View the original article here

EPA Regulation and Crucifixion

Fox News reports that EPA’s Region 6 administrator has apologized for comparing his agency’s enforcement strategy to Roman crucifixion. Of course, the 2010 remarks by EPA’s Al Armendariz, were captured on video, which you can see here.

Despite Armendariz’s apology, U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, which is in the EPA region that Armendariz administers, is investigating. Inhofe said the crucifixion comments suggest a campaign of “threats” and “intimidation.”

Certainly, one poorly chosen analogy from a single regional administrator doesn’t indict an entire agency – though it’s concerning that this fellow, with his apparent zest for enforcement, has had oversight for the energy-rich Eagle Ford and Barnett shale areas of Texas. Talk about a chilling effect.

We hope that Armendariz’s approach to regulation is atypical. Industry prides itself on working as a partner with regulators. Perhaps EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson had some of her agency’s more enthusiastic members in mind when she acknowledged (here and here) that state regulation and state regulators should take the lead when it comes to producing energy from shale with hydraulic fracturing.

The states are best situated in terms of proximity, familiarity and perhaps temperament to regulate oil and natural gas development via fracking. They know the geology, hydrology and other local/regional conditions. With cooperation from industry and with the help of organizations like STRONGER, this is oversight best performed by the states.

Let’s not overburden them and industry – threatening the obvious benefits from shale energy production – by adding unnecessary, duplicative regulatory layers, which Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead argued in a recent letter to the Interior Department.


View the original article here

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Apr 25, Hi i`am Patrick looking for a job working on a oil rig.

by Patrick
(South Africa)

Hi i`am Patrick looking for a job working on a oil rig.I do a cours in ship crane with a capacity of 60000.I do all the test druc test /eyes and body fitness test instructor reg N9612/203/763 AND I DONT DO DRUCS/OR DRINK ALCOHOL.11Years as a crans operator.
My email is patcloete@gmail.com or cloete.patrick@yahoo.com

Click here to post comments.

Join in and write your own page! It's easy to do. How?
Simply click here to return to Rig Crane Operators.



View the original article here

Apr 25, i need one chance to work on offshore as radio operator

by antony
(tamilnadu.)

i am antony. i have completed indian GMDSS and have indian CDC. i have been working in oil jetty for last two year. i attend two offshore company interview. but they need offshore experience. everybody needs offshor experience, bum nobody give to one chance ..hw can i get job? d a nmd

Click here to post comments.

Join in and write your own page! It's easy to do. How?
Simply click here to return to Rig Radio Operators.



View the original article here

Apr 25, Hi i`am Patrick looking for a job working on a oil rig.

by Patrick
(South Africa)

Hi i`am Patrick looking for a job working on a oil rig.I do a cours in ship crane with a capacity of 60000.I do all the test druc test /eyes and body fitness test instructor reg N9612/203/763 AND I DONT DO DRUCS/OR DRINK ALCOHOL.11Years as a crans operator.
My email is patcloete@gmail.com or cloete.patrick@yahoo.com

Click here to post comments.

Join in and write your own page! It's easy to do. How?
Simply click here to return to Rig Crane Operators.



View the original article here

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Oil Sands, Refined Products, and Exports: Just the Facts

U.S. Crude Oil Stays in the United States. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), in 2011, 99.7 percent of the crude oil produced in (or imported into) the United States was also consumed here, which means less than one-half of one percent (0.3 percent) was exported. Simply put, the United States does not export crude oil in any significant way.

The United States Exports Very Little Gasoline. Of the total on-road fuel produced in the United States in 2011, 92 percent of it was refined and consumed in the United States; only eight percent was exported. And of all the petroleum products that the United States does export, finished motor gasoline only represents about 21 percent. The majority of exported products (79 percent) are things like propane, ethanol, heating oil, and kerosene, which are produced in amounts in excess of U.S. demand.

   

What the United States Is Exporting Is Going to Mexico, which Benefits the United States. Of the gasoline that is exported, 60 percent goes to Mexico, from which the United States imports crude oil. This exchange benefits the United States: Gasoline is worth more than oil, so we’re purchasing a good and then selling back a more expensive good, not only creating a net value-add for the U.S. economy, but also creating manufacturing jobs and generating tax revenue.

The Oil Sands Would Replace Declining Supplies. According to the EIA, increased imports from the Canadian oil sands would likely replace heavy crude imports from Mexico, Venezuela, and Ecuador. Heavy oil imports from those three countries are about 900,000 barrels per day less than what they were in 2005, and they are projected to decline by an additional 540,000 barrels per day by 2020 and 845,000 barrels per day by 2035.

No Reason to Export Heavy Oil. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), in reviewing the Keystone XL project, concluded that “there would be no economic incentive to ship Canadian oil sands [crude] to Asia via Port Arthur” without a surplus of heavy oil. And since heavy oil imports are declining (DOE noted that heavy oil imports “are likely to decrease by a significant amount within the next five years”), oil sands crude from Canada would be filling a gap, not creating excess supply.


View the original article here

White House Fracking Group: Positive Step Forward

Credit where credit’s due: The White House issued an executive order Friday creating an interagency working group to coordinate the administration’s review of hydraulic fracturing. It’s a welcome step considering what was developing – a regulatory mishmash wrought by the 10 separate federal agencies that were looking at fracking rules and policies. API President and CEO Jack Gerard:

“We’re pleased that the White House recognizes the need to coordinate the efforts of the 10 federal agencies that are reviewing, studying or proposing new regulations on natural gas development and hydraulic fracturing. We have called on the White House to rein in these uncoordinated activities to avoid unnecessary and overlapping federal regulatory efforts and are pleased to see forward progress.”

The United States is enjoying an energy revolution thanks in large part to hydraulic fracturing – producing record amounts of oil from North Dakota and ample supplies of affordable natural gas from a handful of other states. Energy, energy-related jobs and associated economic growth are the result – as well as boosts to other sectors including manufacturing and the chemical industry.

Yet, the possibility loomed that fracking and its benefits could be smothered by a regulatory jungle from Washington, with needless delays and unnecessary costs discouraging investment and innovation. If the new working group prevents this, it will be a good thing.

We recognize the new group is less than 24 hours old, but some key points it should consider:

Hydraulic fracturing is the chief reason the U.S. is having an energy revolution. Without fracking, there’s no revolution.The states already have sound regulatory regimes in place, assisted by initiatives like STRONGER, which are tailored to the different geographies, geologies and other specific factors where fracking is under way.Industry has led the way in terms of technological innovation and the development of operating standards, as well as efforts to provide information and create transparency in fracking operations.

Gerard:

“We have one of the largest known reserves of natural gas in the world, and we need public policies based on sound science in order to develop this affordable source of energy.”

The new working group is a step in that direction.


View the original article here

EPA Should Improve Emissions Rule Before Finalizing

Here’s something to keep in mind as we discuss the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed rule on emissions from oil and natural gas development: A Rasmussen Reports poll this week showed 44 percent of likely voters believe, generally, that EPA’s regulations and actions hurt the economy. Just 17 percent disagree and say EPA’s policies help the economy.

EPA has a new policy on the way, the proposed New Source Performance Standards. As presently crafted, the standard would require hydraulic fracturing operators to use “green completion” equipment to control emissions of volatile organic compounds or VOCs.

But in a conference call with reporters, Howard Feldman, API director of regulatory and scientific affairs, said the proposed rule could needlessly impose significant costs – more than $780 million over four years – and troublesome delays on energy producers:

“First, the proposed rule would require more emissions equipment for sources that emit little to no regulated pollutants and should not be subject to these requirements. … Second, EPA recognized that there will be a significant increase in reduced emission completions but failed to analyze whether or not there is enough of the specific emissions reduction equipment available.”

Joined by Sara Banaszak of America’s Natural Gas Alliance, Feldman said industry has urged EPA to apply the new rule only to sources with significant VOCs emissions – and not to those whose vent streams contain less than 10 percent VOCs. Industry also believes more time is needed to develop and deploy the equipment needed to reduce emissions, as well as to train workers to use it. Feldman:

“The fact is that the industry is already leading efforts to reduce emissions. Our companies, after all, are in the business of selling methane, which is natural gas, so they don’t want it to escape into the atmosphere. The technology and equipment being used to reduce emissions were created by the industry itself – not by the EPA or by our critics in the environmental movement – and companies are already implementing it in many locations. … The (EPA) proposal took too much of a one-size-fits-all approach to regulating an industry that varies greatly in the type, size and complexity of operations.”

Critics say oil and natural gas companies are trying to avoid compliance with emissions-reducing efforts, which Feldman rejected:

“I want to be clear that we do not oppose these rules. … The whole concept of the VOCs threshold, let me emphasize, is to make sure that the rule is cost-effective for the regulated pollutant. It would be unprecedented to try to fit a standard that would have an extremely high [cost] approaching infinity. … You don’t force controls where there are no significant emissions. … Where there’s no emissions, to require control equipment doesn’t make any sense.”

Although environmentalists say the proposal as written would pay for itself or even produce revenue for industry, Feldman and Banaszak said EPA cost-effectiveness estimates are based on flawed data. Drillers say compliance costs and delays would be significantly greater. Feldman said if the choice is between the estimates of “lawyers in Washington” and operators, he would go with people doing the work on the ground.

EPA’s proposed rule is scheduled to be finalized next week. Earlier Thursday, API President and CEO Jack Gerard sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, outlining industry’s concerns. Will EPA listen? Rasmussen’s results certainly suggest it should.


View the original article here

Job Creation and the Effects of Regulation

A follow-up to our follow-up on a Washington Post article that dismissed the effects of increased U.S. oil production on global crude oil markets. The story also took shots at the oil and natural gas industry’s ability to create jobs, as well as industry assertions about the potential effect of a new gasoline standard on refineries.

Let’s start with jobs. A Wood Mackenzie study released last fall said that with the right policies the oil and natural gas industry could create 1.4 million new jobs by 2030. Here’s what the job-creation growth looks like in a chart from that study:

As it has done in previous articles, the Post suggested the projection isn’t valid because it includes direct, indirect and “induced” jobs – “everything from day-care workers to valets to rocket scientists.” We discussed that here and here. Kyle Isakower, API vice president for policy analysis:

“Estimates include induced economic benefits, as do the administration and its supporters’ estimates of green jobs created by the stimulus package. Including estimates of induced employment effects is a common practice in economic modeling. Increased economic activity in one sector provides more income to the economy that will have a ripple effect in other sectors.”

Isakower continues:

“Increased oil and gas exploration requires more steel for well casings. More steel means more steel foundry workers. As the steel mill expands and hires workers, those workers’ incomes increase and they spend more on other goods and services – housing, cars, food, etc. So when a new sandwich shop opens up across the street from the steel mill, those workers hold real jobs that would not exist without the increase in oil and gas development. I doubt any policymaker wants to tell any of these people that their jobs aren’t real, or that they don’t matter.”

This isn’t theory. It’s happening in states including North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas and Ohio, where oil and natural gas development is creating boom conditions in state and regional economies.

Now, as for the potential connection between increased regulation and refinery closures, the Post wrote:

“API has also said new EPA standards will mean high gas costs. An API study said standards for low-sulfur gasoline would add 12 to 25 cents a gallon to the price and force the shutdown of four to seven refineries. However, a new study by API’s consultants, Baker & O’Brien, says EPA’s new standards would add six to nine cents a gallon and that no refineries would have to close. George R. Schink, managing director at Navigant Economics, testified at a congressional hearing that the standards would add 2.1 cents a gallon.”

Isakower said the Baker & O’Brien findings changed because EPA, which originally was considering lower sulfur and gasoline volatility (or RVP) requirements – leading to the 12 to 15 cents per gallon estimate of increased production costs – later decided it would not include an RVP reduction:

“We asked Baker & O’Brien to revise their study to estimate increased costs for the lower sulfur requirement alone, which resulted in the 6 to 9 cents estimate. Given EPA’s lack of transparency in the early stages of this rulemaking, and their change in regulatory plans, the differences in Baker & O’Brien’s estimates are to be expected.”

And Schink? Isakower:

“(His) testimony that the costs for gasoline production would only increase 2.1 cents per gallon simply  averaged Baker & O’Brien’s cost estimate across all refineries. However, the Baker & O’Brien study estimates the marginal cost for those refineries that must upgrade to meet the new requirements, so his analysis is not directly comparable to the Baker & O’Brien marginal cost estimate. Refiners compete with one another – those that do not have to upgrade will not share in the cost of the upgrades for the facilities that do, as Schink’s testimony suggests.”


View the original article here

‘The Laws of Supply and Demand Do Work’

Back in February we ran the chart below. Then, at a congressional hearing last month, API President and CEO Jack Gerard referred to it in testimony urging lawmakers to consider the effects of increased U.S. oil production on global crude oil markets. We’ve written about the effects of increasing domestic supply here, here and here.

Last weekend the Washington Post took issue with the notion that the basic laws of supply and demand apply to crude oil like they do other globally traded commodities. The article noted Gerard’s congressional statements about supply and market expectations and dismissed them:

"As Gerard told it, 'the price of crude oil over three days dropped $15 a barrel and continued to move down.' The lesson, he said, was that 'markets are driven on a global basis by expectation. If the market heard the president of the United States say ‘I’m serious about producing my vast energy resources,’ you will see an impact in the market.' The tale was an indictment of President Obama. But there’s one hitch, say oil experts. It doesn’t hold together."

The Post attributed the crude price plunge to other factors:

“The dizzyingly high (oil) price, and fears of an economic slowdown, triggered a wave of selling by oil investors or speculators, in part because of margin calls. The prices of equities as well as commodities such as corn and aluminum, unrelated to offshore drilling, also fell, reinforcing the argument that oil’s fall was a symptom of broader market conditions.”

Interesting, but we couldn’t help noticing the quote from one of the oil experts in the article’s very next paragraph:

“'There is no doubt that expectations are a part of price movements,'” says Ed Morse, head of commodities research at Citigroup.

Well, that looks like Morse basically just blew away the article’s argument that the supply/market expectations linkage “doesn’t hold together.” To be fair, Morse went on to say he thinks credit problems and the impending recession had more effect on crude prices than energy policy statements. But there’s no escaping the fact that the story’s own source acknowledged that market expectations – about supply changes, national policy shifts, political resolve – have something to do with crude oil “price movements.” API Vice President for Policy Analysis Kyle Isakower:

“We do not argue whether there was … an oil price bubble in July 2008. However, to claim that the signal sent to the market by lifting the presidential moratorium had nothing to do with the drop in prices that began the very next day stretches the limits of credibility. Given the concern many policymakers place on speculation in oil markets, here is a perfect example of a signal being sent to the market that changed traders’ thoughts about future prices.”

Supply and demand indeed applies to the crude oil markets. Increasing supply will exert downward pressure on the price of crude, which is critical since crude currently accounts for about 76 percent of the price we pay at the pump.  WTRG Economics’ James L. Williams:

“If we increase supply in the U.S., will there be an effect on crude markets? Absolutely. … If the U.S. increases domestic production, over time that’s going to bring prices lower. … The laws of supply and demand do work, even if it’s not as obvious as it should be. If we produce more, the price will be lower than it would have been otherwise. … I don’t care who increases oil production, it will decrease oil prices.”

Supply matters. Next.


View the original article here

Monday, April 16, 2012

White House Jobs Plan – The Chart

According to the Pew Research Center the top two public priorities for 2012, by large margins, are the economy and job creation.  So surely the White House has a plan, and they do.  And with a slight modification of the chart posted by TPM the other day, here it is:

More on higher energy taxes here and here, and why that growth line should be higher here.


View the original article here

Behind the Latest Gulf Rig Count Numbers

Reuters reports that eight deepwater drilling rigs are expected in the Gulf of Mexico this year, which would bring the active deepwater contingent to 29 – just short of the number before the 2010 Macando accident. While that will be a positive step, here are some reasons to hold off popping the champagne corks:

The eight rigs are not yet in the Gulf, not yet working.While permit applications to work on Gulf jobs have been submitted, the rigs will return there only if the permits are approved.Given “A” and “B” above, it’s still premature to talk about Gulf drilling being back to normal or “close to pre-moratorium levels.”The eight rigs would bring the Gulf rig count to “just short of the level” before the administration’s permit moratorium, not equal to levels of two years ago.

But here’s the most important point missed by the report: The lost Gulf production caused by the moratorium – the difference between where production is now and where it was forecast to be by government officials a couple years ago.

According to the Energy Information Administration, Gulf production fell from 1.55 million barrels per day in 2010 to 1.32 mb/d in 2011, and was estimated to fall to 1.23 mb/d this year. That’s a 21 percent decline. But look at EIA’s 2010 forecast. Two years ago production was predicted to reach 1.76 mb/d this year. The difference between that forecast and the most recent Gulf production estimate is a whopping 30 percent.

Here’s a chart we’ve used before to illustrate the gap:

API’s Vice President for Policy Analysis Kyle Isakower:

“We should not forget that the (December 2011) Quest study demonstrated that without the moratorium, the rate of drilling was projected to increase, not just stay flat. We remind those following this issue that the baseline they should compare current levels to is the previously planned activity level, not just the activity level at the time the moratorium was put in place.”


View the original article here

FracFocus Turns One!

A year ago this week the FracFocus.org online chemical disclosure registry was created, and what a year it has been: 130 companies logging in the chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing of more than 15,000 wells. More than that, the site is information rich on fracking, groundwater protection, state regulatory efforts and more.

The registry was developed by the Groundwater Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission.  Most importantly, it has been embraced by the oil and natural gas industry as a useful response to legitimate questions about the pressurized fluids – 99.5 percent water and sand, 0.5 percent chemicals – used to fracture subterranean shale formations, freeing natural gas and oil.

According to a report in The Oklahoman, the site has become a clearing house for state and federal regulators fielding questions about hydraulic fracturing. “That's what we intended,” said Gerry Baker, the  Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission’s associate executive director. Officials estimate about 75 percent of all wells drilled in the U.S. are accounted for on FracFocus.

Transparency equals information, which fosters confidence in communities where hydraulic fracturing is under way. Community support is an essential element in the process that is driving an energy revolution, seen in North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio and other states.

Happy birthday, FracFocus – and many more!


View the original article here

Saturday, April 14, 2012

Did Someone Mention Supply Matters?

So, a couple of weeks ago the Associated Press reported on its own special investigation into whether increased domestic oil exploration and development – supply – has any effect on gasoline prices. AP’s conclusion: There’s no correlation and so more U.S. drilling won’t help.
Since gasoline pricing is more complex than that (see our new website), the more apt question is whether supply can affect the cost of crude oil, which accounts for 76 percent of the price we pay at the pump. It’s elementary: Increase supply and you can put downward pressure on the cost of crude, which is the fundamental driver of pump prices.
That’s what we’ve emphasized in posts on AP’s study here and here. Worth repeating is the review of AP’s report by the Marshall Institute’s William O’Keefe, who noted confusion in the wire service’s own story on its own findings:
“The AP even concedes this point mid-way through the story, noting ‘if drilling activity rises around the globe for a sustained period of time, gasoline prices can fall as that new supply eventually finds its way to market.’”
Supply matters – but don’t take our word for it, AP. Look at your own recent reporting:
“Oil Falls Below $107 After US Crude Supply Jump”March 28
And:
“Oil falls below $103 as US crude supplies jump”  – April 4
And:
“Oil drops below $102 on big U.S. supply increase”April 4
Supply matters.
View the original article here

Ohio Welcomes Energy-Related Growth

Glenn Enslen, Carroll County, Ohio’s economic development director, says the east-central part of the state has been the “forgotten part of Ohio for the last 50 years.” No longer. The development of shale resources have changed that part of the state pretty much overnight. “All of a sudden we’re in the forefront of economic development in the state of Ohio,” Enslen says.

Development of Ohio’s Utica Shale is in its infancy compared to Marcellus Shale activity in next-door Pennsylvania. But the shale regions of Ohio see the signs of an energy-related bonanza in terms of jobs, spin-off jobs and economic growth that lifts all boats. “We’ve seen a huge impact from the oil and gas business,” Enslen says. “We have one local hotel. If you’d like to stay there you can get a reservation in three years.”

Here’s a video on boom conditions that are starting to be felt in a long-overlooked, but primed-for-growth area:


View the original article here

Energy From Shale: Re-Energizing the Steel Industry

During a tour of U.S. Steel’s tubular operations facility in Lorain, Ohio, earlier this week, Sen. Rob Portman was able to see, first hand, the way energy from shale is helping lift a key part of the manufacturing sector.

Actually, the relationship between energy and steel manufacturing has mutual benefits. Developing energy in the Utica and Marcellus shale plays of Ohio and Pennsylvania requires vast amounts of quality steel for the best well casings. So, U.S. Steel and other materials suppliers essentially are helping generate demand for their own products.

In Lorain, the Chronicle-Telegram reports that U.S. Steel recently commissioned a tubular finishing line, reflecting a $100 million investment. The line makes seamless steel pipe for construction and oil and natural gas exploration and employs 120 workers. “What’s happening here is we’re producing a product that’s going to be used to create more energy here in America,” Portman said.

The chief obstacle to sustained success? Over-regulation. Portman said Ohio has a good regulatory regime in place for oil and natural gas development, but he’s concerned there might be attempts to add on a layer of unnecessary federal regulation:

“Let’s not do what the EPA has done in regard to other areas, including refineries around the country, and over-regulate, which makes America a place where you can’t compete, and which drives jobs offshore. … A one-size-fits-all approach isn’t going to work.”

Agreed. The economic benefits of shale energy are being realized in Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, Texas and other states. Jobs are being created and long-suffering industries like steel are seeing new life. Here’s a new television commercial that captures the essence of what’s happening:

For more information, visit Energy From Shale.


View the original article here

Mar 3, Rig Materials Coordinator

by Victor Gabriel Ganescu
(Romania)

Over 12 years experience in Materials Management, Materials Controlling. Comfortable in working in a highly computerized environment, SAP user in MM module. Career started from a storekeeper and has risen to experienced material (parts) coordinator level by implementation and practice of proper Supply Chain principles and Material Control Procedures. Maintaining inventory levels within established guidelines. Monitoring material deliveries against ROS (Requested on site) dates, identifying potential shortages (Back orders) and ensuring that corrective action is taken by the relevant department. Monitor that delivered materials and equipment are in compliance with documentation Purchase Orders, Requisitions and issued Materials at the warehouse and their further delivery to sites. Keeping track of all incoming and outgoing materials, Monitoring back load materials to stock. Very safety conscious and ensuring cleanliness and proper housekeeping of warehouse area. Ability to work with diverse groups of people.


View the original article here

Bunk on Oil Issues

Normally, we don’t bother with blog posts from the Center for American Progress on oil issues because, to borrow from an old saying, there’s no point in fact-checking someone who puts out propaganda by the barrel.  But since this post yesterday sought to “debunk” our “claims,” let’s have a look at CAP’s. Warning: These point/counterpoint, counter/counterpoint things can get a little long.

From CAP:

CLAIM: “More domestic production is critical to putting downward pressure on gasoline prices — supply matters.” – Jack Gerard, American Petroleum Institute President and CEO, March 26, 2012

TRUTH: To test whether more U.S. domestic production would lower gasoline prices, the Associated Press just completed an exhaustive analysis of 36 years of monthly U.S. oil production and gasoline price data. AP found that there is:

“No statistical correlation between how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump. If more domestic oil drilling worked as politicians say, you’d now be paying about $2 a gallon for gasoline. Instead, you’re paying the highest prices ever for March.”

Actual Truth: First off, the U.S. is the third-largest producer of oil in the world, so it would defy the laws of economics if there was zero correlation between “how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump.” More on that here. But don’t take our word for it – here are some thoughts from others:

William O’Keefe, the Marshall Institute: “…a policy of NO and a self imposed moratorium on increased exploration has probably resulted in hundreds of thousands of barrels or more not being produced. Adding those unproduced barrels to the current global supply would put downward pressure on crude oil prices which translate into to lower gasoline prices. Instead, there has been a policy of NO to the eastern Gulf of Mexico, NO to offshore drilling, NO to Alaska’s coastal plain, and NO to Keystone XL. With a more enlightened energy policy our oil production over the course of this decade could increase by a million barrels a day or more. That is not trivial.”

Geoff Styles, energy analyst: “Traders have to think about how prices are really set, and they understand that it's the interaction of the last few million barrels per day of supply, demand and spare capacity that really count, along with inventories. An extra million or two barrels per day – a quantity of which North America is certainly capable – can make a huge difference in oil prices.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer and the White House also agree that signals and supply matters.

Back to CAP:

CLAIM: “Opposition to higher energy taxes is rising among the public. A recent ‘What is America Thinking on Energy Issues’ poll showed that 76 percent of voters think that higher energy taxes could equal higher gas prices.” – Jack Gerard, API President and CEO, March 26, 2012

TRUTH: A Center for American Progress Action Fund poll conducted March 10-13, 2012 by Hart Research provided respondents with fourteen policy options asked which “would help a lot to address the issue of gasoline?”  The following option was chosen by 55 percent of the respondents:

“Repeal the four billion dollars per year in federal subsidies that currently are given to the oil companies, and use that money instead to fund investments that will make us less dependent on oil.”

Another 22 percent said that this proposal “would help somewhat.”  The combined totals finished highest among all the options.

Actual Truth:  First of all, CAP’s response is a total non-sequitur. People can believe that higher energy taxes could equal higher gas prices and simultaneously believe that reducing oil use is needed to “address the issue of gasoline.” Second of all, this is a bit of a “garbage-in, garbage-out” question because oil companies don’t get subsidies. Here is a chart from EIA data:

Nor does the industry get tax credits (which reduce taxes dollar for dollar) or grants from the government. They get tax deductions for business investments that will generate tax revenues in the future. Unlike the case of credits or grants, the government will still be paid the full amount of tax owed on our operations. Which means the taxpayer is getting every dollar that’s owed. What the president is proposing is to front-load the tax collection, so that any increases in current collections come at the expense of future taxpayers.

And lastly, oil and natural gas companies are the largest investors in technologies that reduce greenhouse gases. So perhaps this question should be re-phrased: “Do you support the government taking private industry investments in new energy technologies so that the state can direct such research based on political whim?”

Back to CAP:

CLAIM: “API represents more than 500 oil and natural gas companies…that…supports 9.2 million U.S. jobs.” – Jack Gerard, API President and CEO, March 26, 2012

TRUTH: Using API’s NAICS criteria (codes for various occupations) with Bureau of Labor Statistics data, CAP estimates that there were 1,790,000 employees in the oil and gas industry in 2011. Of these, 828,000 – or 46 percent – worked at gasoline stations.

Actual Truth: Note that CAP focuses on employees (and is off by 400,000 there), ignoring the word Gerard actually used, “supports.” And CAP ignores that the industry’s job creation extends beyond the industry itself, as Caroline Baum notes:

“Oil-and-gas drilling crews need equipment, food, clothing and lodging. They want to frequent bars and restaurants in the makeshift boom towns sprouting up in areas of North Dakota, Montana, south Texas and Pennsylvania. Manufacturers of drilling equipment need raw materials, such as steel and chemicals. So there’s a natural multiplier effect. Think of it as fiscal stimulus without the government first taking from Peter to give to Paul…Every direct job created in the oil-and-gas extraction industry, for example, yields 2.3 jobs elsewhere in the economy, Franklin says. This is expressed as a multiplier of 3.3, higher than the average of 2 for the 195 industries tracked by the BLS. Petroleum-and-coal product manufacturing (refineries) happens to have the highest multiplier at 8.2. And yes, manufacturing industries are at once the most capital-intensive, the most productive and still have the biggest spillover effect when it comes to generating jobs.”

Back to CAP:

CLAIM: “Raising taxes will not lower energy prices for American families and businesses — in fact, the Congressional Research Service says this plan could cause gasoline prices to go higher.” – Jack Gerard, API President and CEO, March 26, 2012

TRUTH: A Congressional Research Service memo, “Tax Policy and Gasoline Prices” to Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) determined that eliminating tax breaks for big oil companies would have little impact on the price of gasoline.

Actual Truth: So CAP is rebutting our use of a CRS report from March 2012 by quoting from a CRS memo from last year? But since CAP brings it up, here’s what that earlier CRS memo said: 

“… if the changes in taxes did impact domestic, or overseas exploration and development activity, that does not necessarily imply that less oil would be available in the U.S. market. More might be imported, with little or no effect on gasoline prices.”

In other words (which CAP apparently endorses), don’t worry – we can just import more!

More CAP:

CLAIM: The administration “says it is for natural gas, but 10 federal agencies are looking at new regulations that could needlessly restrict it.” – Jack Gerard, API President and CEO, March 7, 2012

TRUTH: Nothing of the sort is underway.  Minority staff of the House Energy and Commerce Committee thoroughly investigated this claim, and debunked it.

“In a fact sheet supporting the 10-agency assertion, API lists numerous agencies that don’t even have legal authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing...”

Actual Truth: Um, that is sort of exactly our point – that a number of agencies with no business regulating hydraulic fracturing are jumping on the regulation bandwagon.

CAP:

CLAIM: “The industry receives not ONE subsidy, and it is one of the largest contributors of revenue to our government of any industry in America.” – Jack Gerard, API President and CEO, February 23, 2012

TRUTH: Numerous Republican leaders have noted that a tax break is the same as a direct government or subsidy, in a different form.  This includes President Ronald Reagan’s chief economic advisor, Martin Feldstein, former Senate Budget Committee Chair Pete Domenici (R-NM), House Ways and Means Committee Chair Dave Camp (R-MI), and Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH).

Feldstein: “These tax rules — because they result in the loss of revenue that would otherwise be collected by the government — are equivalent to direct government expenditures.”

Domenici: “Many tax expenditures substitute for programs that easily could be structured as direct spending. When structured as tax credits, they appear as reductions of taxes, even though they provide the same type of subsidy that a direct spending program would…”

Camp: “‘Tax expenditures’ [are] provisions that technically reduce someone’s tax liability, but that in reality amount to spending through the tax code.”

Boehner: “What Washington sometimes calls tax cuts are really just poorly disguised spending programs.”

Actual Truth: Each in turn: There’s no loss of revenue for the government (Feldstein), they’re not tax credits (Domenici), they don’t reduce tax liability (Camp), and they’re not tax cuts (Boehner). See above.

And lastly:

CLAIM: “Oil production on federal lands is flat, and oil production on federally controlled offshore areas is down.” – API, “Energy Myths and Facts”, 2012

TRUTH: The Energy Information Administration reports that 3.7 quadrillion BTUs of energy from crude oil were produced from federal lands and waters in 2011. This is a 12 percent increase over the 3.3 quadrillion BTUs produced in 2008 under President George W. Bush. It is also more than was produced from federal lands and waters in 2006 and 2007.

Actual Truth: Interestingly, they really are into comparing 2011 to 2008, 2007 and 2006. Let’s have a look:

2011 doesn’t look so pretty now.  Especially compared to where we should be in some areas:

So, sorry CAP, your debunking is mostly just bunk. And speaking of bunk, here is what our current energy policy looks like, with all of its self-imposed limitations. Not bunk is what actual American progress looks like.


View the original article here

Friday, April 13, 2012

The Difference between Extreme and Efficient

There was a time in this country when the only way to access oil was to commission a boat, take it offshore, locate, engage and coax onto your ship a 175,000-pound whale, bring it back without sinking, and then, once cleaned, extract the relatively small deposits of oil from the animal’s carcass.

You want to talk about “extreme” oil? Ladies and gentlemen: that’s extreme. Thankfully, today, advancements in technology and a commitment to continuous innovation and improvement make the development of oil and natural gas a much easier (and safer) enterprise -- and more efficient too. According to the Energy Information Administration, the United States drilled nearly 4,000 more oil and natural gas wells in 1950 than it did in 2010 – and yet, in 2010, the country actually produced 27 million more barrels of oil. More energy from fewer wells, with less disturbance to land and the environment. If that’s your definition of “extreme” energy, shouldn’t everyone be extremely supportive of it?

Unfortunately, that’s not exactly the position that TIME Magazine takes in its cover story for the April 9 edition, titled “The Truth about Oil.” To hear the reporter tell it, producers should be recognized for engineering the solutions that allow for greater access to larger reserves of energy today – and then indicted for it: since much of the energy rendered available due to that engineering is, in his view, “expensive, dirty and dangerous.”

Cited as an example of this “extreme” energy, TIME focuses in particular on the development of the oil sands in Canada, deploying misleading (and inaccurate) statistics related to emissions and land-impact issues (we correct those below), and then suggesting through implication that oil sands development is new – new, and impossible to make viable absent the “extreme” methods being used to harvest it.

But the truth is: Oil sands exploration isn’t new at all; commercial development has taken place since the mid-1960s (and according to this federal report, research and planning activities began generations before that).

Indeed, the only thing extreme about the resource is its size. Consider: If Alberta were a country, its 170 billion barrels of oil-sands derived oil would rank it third in the world behind Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. And the only thing unconventional is the extraordinary efficiency by which these resources are produced today: with less water, less waste, a smaller footprint, and greater economies of scale. That’s not extreme energy. It’s efficient energy. All made possible by a process that gets even more efficient by the day.

Below, as promised, we take a closer look at several of the assertions found in the TIME piece, and do our best to provide some much needed context and perspective:

TIME: “The new supplies are for the most part more expensive than traditional oil from places like the Middle East, sometimes significantly so.”

As of April 4, the spot price for Western Canada select crude oil was $76/bbl as compared to the $124/bbl Arabian Gulf Arab Light crude oil – a nearly $50/bbl difference in price.Canadian oil resources are helping to reduce the price of oil for U.S. refiners, which in turn, helps stabilize and lower U.S. gasoline prices. According to Stephen Kelly, associate director of Canadian studies at Duke University: “Rocky Mountain refiners paid, on average, $91.54 a barrel for their local and Canadian oil in November. On the East Coast, which receives far less Canadian crude, they paid $111.98, which is 22 per cent more. The difference is quickly felt at the pump.

TIME: “Producing oil from the sands in northern Alberta can be destructive to the local environment, requiring massive open-pit mines that strip forests and take years to recover from.”

The vast majority of bitumen from the oil sands region is harvested without the use of pits, ponds or mining of any sort – via a process known as “in situ.” According to MIT: “For in-situ methods, most of the bitumen is separated from the oil sands underground by thermal means. The bitumen is then pumped to the surface for further processing. Approximately 80 percent of the deposits in Canada … can only be recovered by in-situ methods.” And not only are surface disturbances being reduced, carbon emissions are as well. According to the U.S. State Department, oil sands development projects “have reduced greenhouse gas emissions intensity by an average of 39 percent between 1990 and 2008 and are working toward further reductions.” (State Dept, final EIS for KXL, Aug. 2011)As for the land-use argument, left unmentioned in TIME is that boreal forests of Canada span almost 60 percent of the land mass of the entire country – but only 0.02 percent of that acreage has been affected in any way by oil sands development. Far from destroyed, the land used for oil sands operations must be reclaimed by law.

TIME: “The tailings from those mines are toxic.”

According to the Government of Alberta, tailings are made up of natural materials including water, fine silts, bitumen remnants, salts and soluble organic compounds. They also include solvents that are added to bitumen during the separation process. As mentioned above, less than 20 percent of oil sands development involves the use of surface impoundments.More from Alberta government: “Comprehensive monitoring programs have not detected impacts from tailings ponds on surface water or potable groundwater."

TIME: “As a result, a barrel of oil-sand crude usually has a 10 percent to 15 percent larger carbon footprint than conventional crude over its lifetime, from the well to the wheels of a car.”

The well-to-wheels, or life-cycle analysis, of a fuel typically measures carbon emissions from the beginning of oil production to combustion. According to IHS CERA data, the average oil sands import to the United States is only 6 percent more intensive than U.S. crude supply and is comparable to that of oil. Indeed, according to that same study, 80 percent of emissions come from the combustion of the fuel in a car’s engine – not the production, refining and delivery of the fuel.IHS CERA: “Over the past five years the GHG intensity of U.S. oil sands imports has been steady, and over the next two decades the average is projected to remain steady or decrease slightly.”Carbon emissions as a result of oil sands development account for only 0.1 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). According to Environment Canada: “[T]he oil sands industry has been reducing its per-unit emissions, and in 2009 intensity was actually 29 percent lower than in 1990. This reduction in intensity is positive as larger and larger portions of production are derived from oil sands.”

View the original article here

Confusing the History on the Keystone XL

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney this week, on the administration’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline:

"In terms of Keystone, as you all know, the history here is pretty clear. And the fact is because Republicans decided to play political with Keystone, their action essentially forced the administration to deny the permit process because they insisted on a time frame in which it was impossible to completely approve the pipeline." 

Wait. In the span of two sentences the history on the Keystone XL took a pretty good beating. In fact, in the exchange with White House reporters the only thing that’s clear is that Carney’s job was to make the Keystone XL history unclear. Let’s parse this statement by the press secretary and others.

First, the fact is the Keystone XL has been sitting on the administration’s plate for more than three years – or about twice as long as similar approvals have taken in the past. Talk of a rushed time frame to “completely approve the pipeline” is absurd after more than three years, three successful environmental reviews and numerous public hearings across the country.

More from Carney, quizzed by ABC’s Jake Tapper on how the president could claim to be for an all-of-the-above energy strategy and reject a pipeline that would bring upwards of 800,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada:

"But the President didn't turn down the Keystone pipeline.”

Whoah! The president is the chief executive. It’s his administration.

Carney:

“There was a process in place, with long precedent, run out of the State Department because of the issue of the pipeline crossing an international boundary …”

Suggesting that the State Department’s process was beyond the reach of the White House, in a kind of the-buck-stops-over-there assertion, is just dodging responsibility for a decision that clearly runs counter to the national interest.

Carney:

"The Keystone XL decision “required an amount of time for proper for review after an alternate route was deemed necessary through Nebraska at the request of the Republican Governor of Nebraska and other stakeholders in Nebraska and the region that needed to play out, to be done appropriately. You can't review and approve a pipeline, the route for which doesn't even exist.”

Now blame shifts to Nebraska and Gov. Dave Heineman, who objected to the pipeline’s route through the state’s Sand Hills region. But here’s Heineman last month, puzzled that the administration continues to use Nebraska as an excuse to shelve the project. The governor said the pipeline could start from either end and finish in Nebraska, which is possible because all of the other approvals are in place and because no one believes the pipeline won’t win final approval from Nebraska:

“At a minimum, the president of the United States could do a conditional yes. … Since the Department of State basically approved the old route, we don’t really think at the end of the day there is going to be a challenge there. … When you have an 8.5 percent unemployment rate in America – this is a no brainer.”

So yes, Carney’s memory on the Keystone XL needs refreshing. (See Sean Hackbarth’s post over at FreeEnterprise.com.) The pipeline would create 20,000 U.S. jobs during its construction phase and be integral to fully utilizing Canada’s oil sands resources that could create 500,000 U.S. jobs by 2035. As Hackbarth notes, the project has labor union and business support.

Meanwhile, Carney’s boss keeps talking about an all-of-the-above energy strategy – words that ring hollow when you look at what the real history of the administration’s handling of the Keystone XL pipeline.


View the original article here

Feb 9, How can I apply to your company as kitchen helper

by ramiro tumbaga
(lt6 blk 3citi homes subd. manuyo uno las pinas philippines)

Im a seaman for more than ten years and I worked as a messman on the ship and im still here on teekay shipping Company, I want to try to work to your Company . I know how make bread and cake too and i can coom the breakfast as well coz here in the shuttle tanker were the messman cook and prepare the breakfast for the offficers and crew.

I can work a long period of time if u you will give me a chance to work in your company.
thank you very much Sir ill wait your call or answer my mail ..

View the original article here

Energy From Shale: Making Lives Better

Here’s an interesting video set from the folks at Energy In Depth, showing how natural gas development in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus shale play has lifted the lives of three women and their families. Take a look:

The point underscored throughout: Real people, real lives, real economic empowerment. Three women and three families – their lives made better with the energy-from-shale revolution that has come to Pennsylvania, paying more than $1.8 billion in lease and bonus payments to landowners in 2008 alone and which now employs more than 229,000, almost 2 percent of the commonwealth’s population.

For more information, visit Energy From Shale.


View the original article here

Environmental Experts Boost State Regulation of Fracking

The New York Times’ Joe Nocera has a column based on an interview with Fred Krupp, a key member of the Energy Department’s special subcommittee on hydraulic fracturing – key because Krupp’s also president of the Environmental Defense Fund. Nocera writes:

"Unlike others in the environmental movement, [Krupp] and his colleagues at the Environmental Defense Fund don’t want to shut down fracking; rather, their goal is to work with the states where most of the shale gas lies and help devise smart regulations that would make fracking environmentally safer."

Nocera discusses the need to improve the capture of leaked methane from fracked natural gas wells, which certainly is an industry priority. Nocera then asks Krupp whether the federal government should take the regulatory lead, presuming that would foster greater uniformity and tougher enforcement. He writes:

"Krupp frowned. “Given the dysfunction in D.C., a state-by-state approach will be more effective,” he said. “We need to focus on getting the rules right, and complied with, in the 14 states which have 85 percent of the onshore gas reserves.”

We agree. States are best situated to regulate the development of natural gas from shale because they’re closest to drilling operations and they know the geology, hydrology and other physical characteristics that vary from state to state.

In this view Krupp has important company: EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. Earlier this month Jackson told a campus forum that fracking regulations don’t have to extend beyond the state level – following on an interview last fall in which she said the states are doing a good job regulating hydraulic fracturing and that “we have no data right now that leads us to believe one way or the other that there needs to be specific federal regulation of the fracking process.”

We also agree on the need to get the rules right. Oil and natural gas companies have set high, constantly improving standards and are working with local communities and states to run transparent, responsible operations.

It’s in everyone’s interest to get this right, to respect the environment while tapping America’s vast shale natural gas resources, creating jobs and generating economic growth along the way. The country’s oil and natural gas companies are on it.


View the original article here

Apr 8, where to loking for camp boss job in offshore

by jaca
(north sea at moment live in poland)

I have 22 years expiriens at sea at offshore and still working there.just like to chnage comppany for little biger and work with more crew to use my expierienc because I like this job.

Click here to post comments.

Join in and write your own page! It's easy to do. How?
Simply click here to return to Oil Rig Catering and Cooking.



View the original article here

Administration’s Energy Proposals: Less Than Meets the Eye

With a nod to H.L. Mencken, who made art out of presidential punditry nearly a century ago, the current president’s election-year energy campaign is rife with “balder and dash.” Consider two recent administration pronouncements – to allow offshore seismic testing and to expedite permitting for drilling on federal lands – each of which amount to quite a bit less than meets the eye.

Let’s look at the second one first. In North Dakota to see an energy boom in progress, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar pledged a new effort to speed up federal onshore permitting:

“…Salazar touted new automated tracking systems for managing lease sales and monitoring applications to drill wells on public lands that could pare processing time down to 60 days from nearly 300 now.”

Certainly, reducing the time it takes to process a federal permit application from nearly a year to two months is a positive step. Just as certain, it helps the administration sidestep the question of why operators currently have to wait up to a year to get a permit. Or maybe it doesn’t.

A study of Bureau of Land Management records showed there has been a slowdown in new leases, permits and wells drilled on BLM lands as a result of federal land energy policy. Declines in those categories were nearly twice as great on federal lands, compared to non-federal lands in western states. So, while the administration might be credited with moving to fix a problem, it’s a problem the administration has fostered. And more needs to be done. API Upstream Director Erik Milito:

“Today’s announcement sounds promising, but we would suggest additional reforms are needed. We support any system that will ensure efficiency and a clear, consistent application process. Most important, the administration needs to streamline the multi-year timeframe for environmental reviews and open additional areas for responsible energy development.”

Then there’s this: The U.S. Chamber’s Sean Hackbarth notes a flip-flop in the administration’s new zeal for expediting onshore permits:

“Improving the permitting process is never a bad thing. … However, what the department is touting is not a new innovation. The program they dug out is the same one they’ve been trying to eliminate the last three years.”

Hackbarth then links to the administration’s past four budget requests, each of which asked for repeal of the program it now touts:

“The Interior Department is taking credit for a program they have consistently tried to shut down, similar to taking credit for increased oil production that resulted not from its own policies, but, rather, from those implemented by previous administrations.”

Balder. Now the dash.

Last week the administration said it would allow seismic testing for oil and natural gas along parts of the East Coast, suggesting it supports more offshore development. Yet, the White House has banned lease sales in the Atlantic for at least the next five years – meaning seismic research there has no ultimate purpose. Milito:

“This is political rhetoric to make it appear the administration is doing something on gas prices, but in reality it is little more than an empty gesture. The administration’s announcement does not put us on track to produce more of our own energy, and it does not make up for three years of failed energy policy. It continues the pattern of delaying U.S. oil and gas development and supplies until well into the future.”

Bottom line: Beware of election-year flourishes and fan dances. This administration has a nearly four-year record of actions amounting to an off-oil policy – one that’s terribly inconvenient as Americans grapple with higher fuel costs. Hence, the need to look busy on energy – summoning another Mencken aphorism: “flap and doodle.”


View the original article here

Graphically Speaking: Fracking and Groundwater

Check out the useful infographic below that shows how groundwater protection can work hand in hand with responsible natural gas development that uses hydraulic fracturing. Go here, and it becomes interactive.

Industry guidelines developed by API and its members call for key components detailed in the graphic: sound well construction, backflow prevention, secure impoundment strategies and smart water use and reuse and safe waste disposal. All are designed to prevent leaks and surface spills, and to promote good stewardship.

In addition, the graphic depicts some fracking basics that help blunt some of the myths about the process – specifically, that hydraulic fracturing occurs a mile or more beneath the surface, with thousands of feet of impermeable rock between fracked areas and groundwater. As the graphic shows, hydraulic fracturing fluids are 99.5 percent water and sand and .5 percent chemicals. People can check the FracFocus website to learn what’s being used in their area.

For more information, visit EnergyFromShale.org.


View the original article here