In an Election Year, Time to Talk Energy

Just a thought, but how great would it be if one of this fall’s presidential debates focused solely on energy issues?

Past presidential debates have discussed the economy and jobs, national security and foreign policy, and of course all of those are important. Yet, when you think about it, energy is the nexus where all come together.

Energy runs our economy, literally, and the quest for it supports millions of jobs and could create hundreds of thousands more. Our need for reliable, affordable energy figures prominently in national security and foreign policy decisions. An America that meets most or all of its energy needs here at home would be safer, its prosperity less vulnerable to geo-political developments.

So, when the people who decide the topics for this year’s presidential debates get together, maybe they might consider devoting one evening for a thorough energy discussion. Exelon’s James Connaughton, former senior energy and environmental policy advisor in the Bush administration, talking this week about energy as an election-year issue:  

“This is the first election in a long time where energy is in the top five list – not surprisingly because of the immediate connection to jobs and economic growth. In the past, when jobs and economic growth weren’t at the forefront, maybe we weren’t thinking about energy so much. But I’m amazed – both the Obama campaign and the Romney campaign, they’re spending a lot of time talking about energy and visions of energy.”

There’s plenty to talk about. This week API presented a series of platform recommendations to the two political parties that get to the heart of what America’s energy future could look like. The planks:

Greater domestic resource access

Open the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic and Pacific outer continental shelves for energy exploration and development, where more than 100 billion barrels of oil and nearly 480 trillion cubic feet of natural gas are believed to exist. Currently, 87 percent of our offshore areas are closed to exploration and development:

Open a small portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and parts of the Rocky Mountains to development, while lifting the drilling moratorium in New York.

Common Sense Regulation

Build a federal regulatory structure that’s transparent, open to input from all stakeholders and bases rules on sound science.Develop a rule-making process that’s based on legitimate cost-benefit analysis and implementation timelines that consider economic impacts and resource availability.Adopt an approach that accounts for the cumulative effect of multiple regulations, avoids unnecessary duplication and provides regulatory certainty.

Efficiency and Timeliness in Permitting

Approve the complete Keystone XL pipeline immediately.Create a federal permitting process that encourages investment in U.S. offshore projects.Increase federal lease sales and adopt pro-access processes to improve development on public lands.

As this chart shows, delays in government leasing and permitting are a contributor to the trend lines in oil and natural gas production in federal onshore and offshore areas:

Sustainable Energy Future

Commit to market-based development of new energy sources (instead of government picking winners and losers through the tax code).End calls for special, punitive tax increases on the oil and natural gas industry.

API President and CEO Jack Gerard:

“A political and policy commitment to a developing our domestic oil and natural gas resources will provide not just energy security, but financial security for millions of Americans. … Through the Vote 4 Energy campaign, we have outlined our vision for a future where people and the economy benefit with hundreds of thousands of new jobs, increased investment in America and billions in new revenues for government while bolstering national security.”

View the original article here

Ethanol – Academics and Reality

Supporters of continuing ethanol subsidies are once again using a study out of Iowa State to bolster their case, and once again, it doesn’t.  This year’s study, “The Impact of Ethanol Production on U.S. and Regional Gasoline Markets: An Update to 2012,” is an update to their previous work. In reviewing that work, here’s what the Institute for Energy Research concluded:

"The recent Iowa State study claiming that ethanol production has suppressed the growth in gasoline prices is very misleading. It takes for granted the current refinery capacity and other infrastructure that industry uses to deliver gasoline to motorists, without realizing that federal policies over the years have distorted the development of these markets. Ethanol only survives in the market place at its current levels because it is propped up by artificial mandates and preferential tax treatment. The regression analysis of the Iowa study doesn’t accurately capture the timeline that would have occurred had the free market been allowed to operate."

The studies’ authors concede as much:

"Because these results are based on capacity, it would be wrong to extrapolate the results to today's markets."

And yet, ethanol’s supporters extrapolate away. Here’s more on why they shouldn’t.

Common Sense:  The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) mandates ethanol volume that must be consumed in the U.S., and motor gasoline fuel in the U.S. is nearly saturated with ethanol at current legal limits.  The U.S. is a net exporter of ethanol.  It doesn’t make sense that incremental ethanol production results in downward pressure on gasoline markets. 

Questionable Results:  The results for 2011, even to the report’s own authors, are questionable, and possibly invalid.  Specifically, the authors say: 

"The results for 2011 are very large. These results may be questionable because we multiply a mean coefficient that is estimated over the entire sample period against data that is specific to the end of the sample period. We can be much more confident in the statistical accuracy of the estimated average impact but this estimate is not relevant to the current debate because ethanol production has surged since the mid-point of the historic data."

They correctly identify that ethanol has a 2-3 percent decrease in range when compared to gasoline, and then go on to say that its energy value is about 9 cents per gallon. They then indicate that ethanol is blended with gasoline primarily for its additive properties, such as boosting octane and oxygen content.

First, seven years ago the oxygen mandate was removed when the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was signed into law, so oxygen content is not a property the refiners are seeking. Second, to meet the RFS, refiners are required to blend gasoline with as much ethanol as possible. Indeed, the amount that can be blended today that will work in all vehicles and small engines is a 10 percent ethanol blend.  The study does not consider the possibility that without the ethanol mandates, refiners might modify their manufacturing process to produce a fuel that does not require ethanol.  Yet, the authors say, none of this makes any difference to the overall conclusions.  How can that be?

Exaggerations Abound:  The benefits of small increases in ethanol manufacturing for 2011 are overly exaggerated, especially in the context of essentially unchanged ethanol consumption between 2010 and 2011 (EIA reports an increase from 12.86 billion gallons to 12.87 billion gallons, respectively).  The report is exaggerated because this small increase does not account for increased ethanol exports. We support the manufacturing of ethanol, but we must be realistic and recognize that increased production of ethanol that is above what can be used in the U.S. is not likely to have the ability to impact gasoline prices in the U.S.

A Bad Model:  This analysis is deeply flawed as it relies on an out-of-date model that doesn’t reflect current markets.  Beginning in January 2010, the U.S. became a net exporter of ethanol.  This is a critical structural change in the U.S. ethanol industry.  However, this aspect is not included in the report’s econometric model.  This is a serious omission and doesn’t accurately reflect ethanol’s impact.  The authors indicate that: “…U.S. prices are lower than EU prices by an amount equal to transportation costs.  In context a $1.09 per gallon marginal impact for 2011 seems reasonable.” However, transportation costs on gasoline have been typically only pennies per gallon, and stating that $1.09 is “reasonable” does not pass the red-face test. As Marlo Lewis notes:

“I’m no econometrician, but this study does not pass the laugh test. We’re supposed to believe that ethanol has conferred a giant boon on consumers even though gasoline prices have increased as ethanol production has increased, and even though gas prices hit their all-time high when ethanol production hit its all-time high. If that is success, what would failure look like?”

Inaccurate statements:  The report states that the surge in ethanol production has essentially added 10 percent volume to the fuel supply, and that to remove the ethanol fraction of gasoline would decrease supply, which in turn would raise gas prices when demand is held constant. More accurately, the RFS mandate to blend ethanol has displaced 10 percent of the petroleum portion of gasoline and replaced it with ethanol.  This reduced need for gasoline has contributed to such unintended consequences as reduced refinery runs and refinery shutdowns.  The report also ignores the fact that the current economic recession has further reduced gasoline demand.  The report states that as a result of ethanol, the U.S. has been able to reverse trade patterns and export gasoline. The study doesn’t appear to take into account gasoline blending components. The U.S. still remains a net importer of gasoline and blendstocks.  Here is the Energy Information Administration U.S. Gasoline Balance for 2011:

API supports a realistic and workable Renewable Fuel Standard.  But, the U.S. will soon hit the 10 percent ethanol “blend wall,” where the vehicle fleet will no longer be able to tolerate additional ethanol in the gasoline supply.  The negative economic impact of hitting the blend wall may be substantial and is not addressed in the report.  So what is this “blend wall?”  Autoblog.com explains:

“What's this blend wall term that's tossed around in the corn fields of this country? Basically, ethanol demand is maxed out at the current 10 percent blend rate and production has hit a ceiling. So, unless either gas demand increases or the blend rate goes up, there's just no need for any more ethanol at the pump.”

As we have seen, gasoline demand is not increasing in the United States, and with the new CAFE standards it is unlikely to increase, so ethanol producers are seeking to increase the blend rate. But rather than trying to expand their U.S. market by having the federal government force U.S. consumers to use their products, ethanol producers should pursue new markets –via exports–not new mandates.

View the original article here

Watch Live: Energy in an Election Year

Editor's note: The event has concluded. Archive footage is available above.

With the right leadership and policies, the United States can take control of its energy future. A new estimate that an oil shale formation in the western U.S. holds 1.5 trillion barrels of recoverable oil, expanding production of natural gas from shale and analysis that the U.S. could secure 100 percent of its liquid fuel needs through North American sources within 15 years certainly support that conclusion.

Leadership and policies. Specifically, what will it take?

At an event today, API will present recommendations to the Republican and Democratic platform committees – proposals that include detailed calls on resource access, regulatory approach and key policies needed to utilize our ample domestic resources for a more secure energy future.

In addition, API President and CEO Jack Gerard will deliver a short speech, followed by a bipartisan panel discussion with energy advisors and experts.

You can watch livestreaming of the event starting at 9 a.m. above:

Gerard:

“The question is not whether we will continue to need oil and natural gas. We will. The question is: will we use our own vast energy supplies or rely on others? … There is a choice when it comes to the policies that will help shape America’s energy future—two paths that we can take. One leads to more jobs, higher government revenues, and greater U.S. energy security—which can be achieved by increasing oil and natural gas development right here at home. The other path would put jobs, revenues, and our energy security at risk.”

View the original article here

Unused Leases? You’ve Got to be Joking!

The warmed-over claim that oil and natural gas companies aren’t using large numbers of leases on public lands is like a Mark Twain line: What’s the difference between a cat and a lie? A cat only has nine lives!

Seriously, here we go again, with the administration claiming (again) that leases in federal areas offshore and onshore aren’t being used. It made similar claims in 2009 and again last year. Politico Pro [subscription required] says this year’s report is basically last year’s with a few updated numbers. Here’s a statement from Interior Secretary Ken Salazar:

“These lands and waters belong to the American people, and they expect those energy supplies to be developed in a timely and responsible manner and with a fair return to taxpayers.”

Let’s be clear: It’s simply false that oil and natural gas companies are sitting on existing federal leases while deviously clamoring for more access to other federal areas. Let’s go through the reasons why the administration’s claim doesn’t pass the laugh test.

First, energy companies are in the business of supplying energy. When they’re successful finding oil or natural gas, there’s benefit to their shareholders, including millions of Americans with pension funds, individual investments, mutual funds and IRAs – the true owners of Big Oil. Energy produced = earnings, which are used to invest in new exploration and development. These companies have every incentive to produce as much oil and natural gas as possible.

The industry is one of exploration and development, not just production. Exploration means years and millions of dollars invested in finding the energy. Too often this development is, in fact, idled by government, not industry. API President and CEO Jack Gerard, from Tuesday’s Vote4Energy event unveiling platform recommendations to the two political parties:

“If you look at their characterization of idle leases, normally they include in that leases where we’re trying to get permits, we’re trying to get permission to develop this land. For example, there was a permit approved just last week in Utah, which Secretary Salazar took great credit for. We’ve been waiting for four and a half years for that approval. In the administration’s previous analysis they would have concluded that was an idle lease, while we’re waiting for Uncle Sam to give us permission to produce these resources, to identify resources on public lands. … The industry last year alone invested $200 billion in the United States, so we’re hardly sitting on anything.”

Meanwhile, it’s also important to remember that a lease isn’t a guarantee that an area will contain any oil or natural gas. Most of them don’t have enough oil or gas in quantities sufficient to produce or in formations that are accessible. Here’s a graphic that puts the search for resources in context:

Indeed, if a company determines there’s no oil or natural gas on the lease, it returns the lease to the government, because it has to. Companies have a legal obligation – under the already existing Use-It-Or-Use-It law – to return the lease to the government if no oil or natural gas can be produced from the lease. Use-it-or-lose –it is already part of existing laws, regulations and the contracts entered into between the government and the operators.

Now, a word or two about report flim-flammery. The administration has defined as “idle” leases that aren’t idle at all. They might not be producing for a number of reasons: because of ongoing seismic work, because government permits haven’t been issued, because the rigs and supporting resources are being put in place so drilling can begin – or because drilling is occurring.

It’s just misleading to say a company is sitting on a lease when it is waiting for a government-issued permit to start drilling. These delays have broad impact. A new study commissioned by the Western Energy Alliance shows that delays related to government policy on western federal lands not only have held up energy development, they’ve prevented the creation of more than 64,000 jobs, $4.3 billion in wages and $14.9 billion in economic impact.

So why is there continued harping on unused leases? Politics. ExxonMobil’s Ken Cohen put it well when the administration released its 2011 report:

“It is hard to escape the conclusion that this study, along with the ‘use it or lose it’ legislation, is a thinly veiled political ploy … because there’s already a ‘use it or lose it’ law on the books. Politicians who don’t want to open up access to U.S. energy resources also don’t want to be blamed for high gas prices – so trying to convince Americans that oil companies are sitting on precious oil resources is their strategy. We’ve seen this before, and we’re seeing it again now.”

Again, like the joke about the cat, we’ve heard the line about unused leases before. It’s getting old.

View the original article here

Continuing the Dialogue with the White House

Takeaways from White House energy and climate adviser Heather Zichal’s appearance at Monday’s hydraulic fracturing workshop in Washington, D.C., hosted by API:

Outreach – The oil and natural gas industry agrees with the Zichal and the administration that constructive dialog on energy issues is, well, constructive. Zichal:

“I give [API President and CEO] Jack [Gerard] and API and a lot of their member companies credit for this. We have worked over the last few months to try to set a better dialogue and create a better working relationship, because what the industry is doing is important from a job-creation perspective.”

Certainly, a fact-based energy discussion has wide benefits. One of the first facts to acknowledge is the role oil and natural gas play in our current energy mix (more than 62 percent of the energy we use) and the role they will play in the future (near 60 percent in 2035, according to the Energy Information Administration). Developing other energy sources and technologies is important, but any credible energy approach must include strategies to support and enhance oil and natural gas – our No. 1 and No. 2 energy sources for today and tomorrow.

Standards – Zichal acknowledged the importance of industry-developed standards:

“We know that natural gas can safely be developed, and to the credit of the industry there are many companies that are leaning into this challenge and promoting best practices for safer and more efficient production. That’s not always widely noticed or appreciated, but it’s a fact. For example, a group of major producers in the Appalachian Basin just last week announced new recommended standards and practices to promote safe and environmentally responsible energy development in that region. This kind of leadership and the underlying commitment by industry to continuously improve and adopt effective practices as technology evolves is something our administration applauds.”

We welcome this recognition on behalf of the administration by Zichal, who’s chairing the White House interagency working group that is coordinating the ongoing federal hydraulic fracturing review. For some time industry has been committed to developing standards and guidelines for hydraulic fracturing, which form the basis for many companies’ operations and upon which a number of states have crafted their regulatory regimes. Perhaps Zichal’s acknowledgement will help lessen the chance the federal government will unnecessarily duplicate what the states already are doing.

States – Related to standards, Zichal said that the administration recognizes the states are the No. 1 or lead regulator of hydraulic fracturing. Gerard, during a conference call with reporters last week:

“The states are regulating hydraulic fracturing effectively and are fully capable of handling it on a larger scale as shale development expands. … They understand the risks and challenges.  They understand the local geology and hydrology.  They have the experience.”

Exports – “As a general rule of thumb, we [the administration] are not opposed to [liquid natural gas] exports,” Zichal said. While there’s some elasticity here, perhaps the general acknowledgement that abundant U.S. natural gas may be exported – benefiting our trade balance while supporting U.S. jobs – will tamp down talk in Congress of restrictive natural gas legislation.

Of course, the true test is what the administration does. Will its actions on domestic oil and natural gas match its words? Will it help increase access to these resources and others in federal areas onshore and offshore – reversing the downward trend in natural gas production on federal lands? Will Zichal’s task force prevent the overregulation of hydraulic fracturing that could check the energy-from-shale revolution in its infancy?

Good questions. Stay tuned.

View the original article here

May 5, Moterman

by Ajay kumar
(India(chandigarh))

Hi sir I have 5years experince as a moterman on DP1,2 and i will tried on us based company.please susgest me how to get

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 Mechanics.

View the original article here

May 9, Chef position..

by Brad Taylor
(Horsham Vic. 3400)

Chef-16 years.. 7 as breakfast chef in busy cafes and bistros in Melbourne and more recently country Victoria. I have successfully completed my STCW95 Marine safety course have a passport and am also booked in for an A.M.S.A. Medical on the 18th May. I will be ready for employment within two weeks of notice!! I will get a position in the off-shore mining or shipping industry, whether it is with your company or not is now up to you!! Brad Taylor ph.0407044513 email bradtaylor39@yahoo.com.au thank you for your consideration,,

View the original article here

May 9, Chef position..

by Brad Taylor
(Horsham Vic. 3400)

Chef-16 years.. 7 as breakfast chef in busy cafes and bistros in Melbourne and more recently country Victoria. I have successfully completed my STCW95 Marine safety course have a passport and am also booked in for an A.M.S.A. Medical on the 18th May. I will be ready for employment within two weeks of notice!! I will get a position in the off-shore mining or shipping industry, whether it is with your company or not is now up to you!! Brad Taylor ph.0407044513 email bradtaylor39@yahoo.com.au thank you for your consideration,,

View the original article here

May 5, Looking for Work

by Randy Right
(Alabama,Monore)

High my name is Randy Right ,an i am looking for a job on a oilrig offshore or land. jedrich2001@yahoo.com

View the original article here

Hansen’s Oil Sands Facts are Lost in Space

To hear it from environmental activist James Hansen, development of the oil sands in Canada will usher in the apocalypse, “game over for the climate,” as he wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed.

It’s a frightening thought, but unfortunately for Mr. Hansen, it’s not grounded in realistic assumptions.

Of course, this isn’t the first time Hansen has proclaimed “game over” if the oil sands are developed. In June 2011, Hansen penned a letter calling the oil sands a “monster,” the development of which would mean “game over” in the global effort to control carbon emissions. Hansen wrote that the oil sands contain “at least” 400 gigatons of carbon, which would equate to adding about 200 parts per million (ppm) to the atmosphere.

But in his recent op-ed, Hansen now states that the oil sands contain 240 gigatons of carbon. What changed?

The reasons are likely numerous, but a significant one came from Andrew Leach, who pointed out last summer (right after Hansen published his letter) that to get the carbon content Hansen claimed, you’d have to burn 2.4 trillion barrels of oil – or about 40 percent more oil than the total in-place resources found in the Canadian oil sands. It’s worth noting that the new figure Hansen uses – 240 gigatons – is 40 percent lower than his original claim. Leach also noted that it would take until the year 3316 to get the amount of oil out of the ground that Hansen is referencing.

Moreover, total oil in place does not indicate how much oil will be produced. Although technologies are constantly evolving to allow for greater recovery rates, the oil sands in Canada are estimated to hold about 170 billion barrels of oil in proven reserves, with as-yet undiscovered, technically recoverable resources being pegged at about 320 billion barrels, or about 86 percent less oil than what Hansen suggested in his original “game over” model.

What’s even worse about Hansen’s doomsday scenario is the “solution” he offers to rectify it: a new tax on carbon that could raise energy costs for consumers, who might not be able to purchase as much, decreasing demand. Hansen specifically references “the reduction in oil use resulting from the carbon price” as something that would, somehow, “stimulate innovation, jobs and economic growth, avoid enlarging government or having it pick winners and losers.”

How a new tax to be collected and distributed by the federal government will “avoid enlarging government” is anyone’s guess.

Finally, Hansen assumes that efficiencies have completely flatlined and will not improve – a hypothesis that doesn’t even pass the laugh test, much less empirical evidence. As just one example, congressionally mandated increases in fuel economy through 2025 will substantially reduce U.S. gasoline consumption. This, combined with increased oil supplies from Canada through the Keystone XL pipeline, would allow the U.S. to reduce oil imports from unfriendly countries like Venezuela – with the added advantage of the environmental benefits pipelines offer over other forms of transportation.

In short, Hansen’s “game over” scenario suffers from significant flaws in its assumptions, and the fix he proposes for his wild projection could actually create additional and unnecessary economic pain to American consumers.

The truth is that development of the oil sands – and the approval of the Keystone XL – will create tens of thousands of new jobs, significantly grow the economy and further enhance America’s energy security. And as U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu has said, companies developing the oil sands are “making great strides in improving the environmental impact of the extraction of this oil and will continue to do so.”

Not so frightening now, is it?

View the original article here

Oil and Energy Security

The Congressional Budget Office has a new report out on energy security that’s sure to spark conversation.  Much of that will seem muddled and polarized – not because of the speakers, but because of the nature of the report itself.  Let’s start with its basic premise:

“One widely used definition of energy security – and the one used in this report – is the ability of U.S. households and businesses to accommodate disruptions of supply in energy markets. Households and businesses are ‘energy secure’ with respect to a particular source of energy if a disruption in the supply of that source would create only limited additional costs.”

CBO is correct that the cost of energy matters, but having actual energy also matters. The report notes, for example, that the U.S. lacks “alternatives” that can be substituted in large quantities for oil for transportation needs if there’s a significant global supply disruption or global price increase. This brings us to supply and demand:

“Policies designed to decrease the impact of increases in oil prices that persist for several years or more can also be divided into those that would increase the supply of oil or oil substitutes (such as increasing domestic oil production) and those that would encourage consumers to reduce their reliance on oil (such as increasing the gasoline tax or developing vehicles that are more fuel efficient or that use other types of fuel). Both types of policies would tend to lower the world price of oil, either by making more oil available to the world market or by reducing demand for it …”

There’s certainly a divide between those pushing for greater U.S. supply and those pushing for decreased U.S. demand.  But that’s a political divide. The energy reality is that we need both – a true all-of-the-above strategy.  

Still, political opponents of increased domestic oil and natural gas development (and increased U.S. supply) surely will seize on this line in CBO’s report:

“Policies that promoted greater production of oil in the United States would probably not protect U.S. consumers from sudden worldwide increases in oil prices stemming from supply disruptions elsewhere in the world,”

While ignoring what comes after the comma:

“even if increased production lowered the world price of oil on an ongoing basis.”

First, let’s note that even as CBO downplays the usefulness of increased domestic oil production, it acknowledges that increased domestic supply is, well, useful in the context of the world price of oil. As for the first part of CBO’s assertion, the fact is that more domestic production must result in one of two outcomes:

Greater supply on the world market resulting in greater crude and/or refined product storage; or Increased worldwide spare capacity

In either case, energy markets would be in a better position to weather a supply disruption without a major spike in prices. That’s not to say there would be no impact, but it would certainly help provide greater protection from such shocks.

Oil is a worldwide market for which the price is determined by supply and demand. What CBO is saying is that on an ongoing basis, increased U.S. supply could lower the worldwide cost and thus, on an ongoing basis, the price for U.S. consumers. CBO argues, however, that if there’s a sudden supply drop (see Libya last year) or even a possible supply drop (see Iran this year), there could be consumer price spikes regardless of the level of U.S. production. The problem with arguing this way against increased domestic production is that day-to-day prices also are an energy security argument. Yet, there also are day-to-day costs to reducing demand:

“Such policies would impose costs on vehicle users (in the case of fuel taxes or fuel-efficiency requirements) or taxpayers (in the case of subsidies for alternative fuels or for new vehicle technologies). But the resulting decisions would make consumers less vulnerable to increases in oil prices.”

In other words, let’s raise day-to-day costs for consumers to shield them from sudden increases in oil prices. New technology vehicles that remain out of the price range of most Americans aren’t much of an energy policy. But it’s really this next part that drives home the need for a real all-of-the-above strategy:

“An increase in crude oil prices would also have a permanent effect on the economy, as the increase in payments to foreign producers and owners of oil assets would represent a transfer of wealth out of the United States.”

But what if, instead of a negative permanent effect, we created a positive permanent effect by keeping that money here:

What if we took charge of our energy future by taking charge of supplying it? Combined with continuing efforts, led by the oil and natural gas industry, to reduce demand and find alternatives – that’s what energy security looks like.

View the original article here

May 9, rig mechanic

by abdul razaq yusuf
(doha,qatar)

what does it reqire to be a rig mechanic for the first time,apart from having up to 20years of experience in the fild as a diesel mechanic.how does one obtain the safety trainnings if it is part of the basics?

View the original article here

Job Creation To-Do List? Here’s Ours

Here’s the president talking about job creation Tuesday in Albany, N.Y.:

“Now, we know the true engine of job creation in this country is the private sector – it’s not Washington.  But there are steps we can take as a nation to make it easier for companies to grow and to hire, to create platforms of success for them -- everything from giving more people the chance to get the right training and education to supporting new research projects into science and technology.”

Sounds good. On job creation the private sector definitely is where it’s at. America’s oil and natural gas industry supports 9.2 million U.S. jobs and could do more – 1.4 million new jobs by 2030 with the right policies, according to a study by the Wood Mackenzie energy consulting firm.

Unfortunately, as the president’s speech went on, his emphasis tilted back toward faith in Washington, with a to-do list for Congress that included familiar items – including tax breaks for small businesses and wind and solar companies. The president:

“We can make a difference.  And at this make-or-break moment for America's middle class, there’s no excuse for inaction.  There’s no excuse for dragging our feet.  None … The truth is, the only way we can accelerate the job creation that takes place on a scale that is needed is bold action from Congress.”

Now, it’s a little odd to hear the president talk about excuse-making and foot-dragging on job creation when he’s the one standing in the way of the biggest shovel-ready project around: the Keystone XL pipeline. This private project would create jobs and help make America’s energy future more secure while sending billions of new dollars in revenue to governments.

Obstacles in Congress? Not with the Keystone XL. The president has the authority to get this project going. No congressional action is needed. Keeping the Keystone XL pipeline – and its jobs, energy and tax revenues – on the drawing board is on the president and no one else.

So, approval of the complete Keystone XL pipeline tops our jobs to-do list. Others:

Regulation – Restrain Washington’s tendency to overregulate. Needless, duplicative regulation is a job killer. Energy is a job-growth sector, especially in the area of shale development. Yet, a new hydraulic fracturing regimen just announced by the Interior Department, while improved from a preliminary version, could threaten shale energy’s game-changing potential by adding a layer of federal regulation in an area that’s already being well-regulated by the states. API President and CEO Jack Gerard during a conference call with reporters:

“It simply isn’t necessary to add a new layer of regulation on top of already competent management and oversight [by the states]. What is the need? ... The feds should not be in the process unless there’s a demonstrated need. … Why not learn from successful models in states like Wyoming instead of risking getting in the way of development?”

Taxes – Reject higher taxes on energy producers. We discuss the president’s energy tax-hike proposals here and here. The bottom line is that when the goal is job creation it makes no sense to raise taxes on a sector that’s hiring and creating economic growth.

Access – Allow greater access to U.S. resources – both by opening new areas for development and by eliminating unnecessary hurdles in places where development is occurring. Vast resources in Alaska and off our coasts remain off limits – and with them job growth that would accompany energy development. Meanwhile, oil and natural gas production in federal areas onshore and offshore is, at best, flat. Gulf of Mexico oil production is just now climbing back toward where it was a couple years ago – and well short of where it was projected, and expected, to be.

OK, so that’s a bit more than would fit on the president’s sticky note. But each of these is within policymakers’ reach, and each would put the onus for job creation where the president said it belongs, on the private sector – specifically on an energy sector that’s a proven job creator and eager to do more.

View the original article here

Going Beyond Rhetoric on Natural Gas

Over on the White House Blog, there’s genuine enthusiasm for natural gas, and for good reason.  Natural gas is clean-burning, affordable and so abundant that a number of experts describe it as a game-changer, a 100-year energy source.

In the here and now, natural gas that comes from shale through hydraulic fracturing is lifting state and regional economies while revitalizing the U.S. manufacturing sector. Heather Zichal, deputy assistant to the president for energy and climate change:

“Since taking office, President Obama has supported an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy. A strategy that’s cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs. As part of that effort, the Administration has focused on expanding production of natural gas. After all, we have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years. And this Administration will continue to take steps to develop this energy resource in a way that can help fuel our economy and, according to industry experts, support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade.”

Zichal is right about the need to expand natural gas development. And it can be done, given the right policies. Eye-popping growth, job creation and industrial/manufacturing revitalization – occurring in states like North Dakota and Pennsylvania – can happen on a larger scale. With the right policies.

Unfortunately, the administration’s actions don’t always match its rhetoric. Although Zichal says the administration is “focused on expanding production of natural gas,” this is not occurring in the places where the administration has the most control of development: on federal lands. The chart below (Energy Information Administration data) shows that natural gas production on federal lands is declining – even as production on non-federal lands is taking off.

Certainly, the Interior Department’s approval this week of more than 3,600 natural gas wells on federal lands in eastern Utah is a move in the right direction. But then, Bureau of Land Management rules on hydraulic fracturing on federal and tribal lands threaten development with new regulatory hurdles. API President and CEO Jack Gerard, during a conference call with reporters:

“These rules are headed in the wrong direction. They would create superfluous, costly requirements, threatening jobs, revenue and energy production while providing little or no environmental or safety benefit. One must ask, where is the need?”

More Gerard:

“It takes 14 days to get a drilling permit to work on private land in North Dakota.  It takes more than half a year on average to get a federal drilling permit for development on federal lands.  A report by SWCA Environmental Consultants concluded that lengthy delays by BLM in reviewing projects in Wyoming put the development of an estimated 17,000 wells on hold.”

It’s good that the administration, at least rhetorically, is embracing the promise of natural gas. But reaping the blessings of this abundant resource takes more than cheerleading. It takes policy actions – policy restraint, in some cases – to turn natural gas’ potential into reality.

View the original article here

EPA’s Jackson: Still No Fracking, Contamination Link

Statements by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson worth remembering the next time there’s a blog post, op-ed column or article that claims as fact that hydraulic fracturing has fouled or poisoned drinking water:

“In no case have we made a definitive determination that the fracking process has caused chemical contamination of groundwater.” (Fox News, April 27, 2012)

And:

"I'm not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water.” (Congressional testimony, May 24, 2011)

Could such a thing occur? Sure. Oil and natural gas development is an industrial enterprise in which precision and care are needed to prevent mistakes and minimize the possibility of accidents.

API and its members have worked hard to develop industry standards to help ensure environmentally safe operations.  Industry also works closely with state regulators and organizations like STRONGER to put in place reasonable and responsive oversight of these activities.

So far, these are working. If they weren’t, Administrator Jackson no doubt would be the first to know.

View the original article here

May 5, Moterman

by Ajay kumar
(India(chandigarh))

Hi sir I have 5years experince as a moterman on DP1,2 and i will tried on us based company.please susgest me how to get

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 Mechanics.

View the original article here

The Post and the EPA’s Perception Problem

The Washington Post’s take on the EPA, in the wake of Al Armendariz, is scathing. The Post editorial:

“The most reasonable interpretation is also among the most disturbing — that Mr. Armendariz preferred to exact harsh punishments on an arbitrary number of firms to scare others into cooperating. This sort of talk isn’t merely unjust and threatening to investors in energy projects. It hurts the EPA. Mr. Armendariz was right to resign this week, while EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson denied that his comments reflected the agency’s approach. Yet the question will remain: Is an aggressive attitude like the one Mr. Armendariz described common among EPA officials?”

The editorial seems to answer its own question – noting EPA’s moves to block an Idaho couple from adding on to an existing home in an established residential area. Earlier this year the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the couple's right to challenge the agency in court without

significant delay and potentially large fines. The Post:

“Maintaining the legitimacy of the EPA’s broad regulatory authorities requires the agency to use its powers fairly and, in so doing, avoid the impression that its enforcement is capricious or unduly severe.”

Yet, the newspaper argued, the EPA seems to already have a reputation for abusive and injudicious conduct, with the Armendiraz and Idaho cases serving to reinforce public perceptions. Not good for EPA, not good for the legitimate work it does keeping our air and water as clean as possible. The Post:

“The lesson for Ms. Jackson and her boss, President Obama, from these two episodes is clear: The agency’s officers must have a clear sense when to deploy its mighty power and when to exercise discretion. That’s true for the sake of the economy and to ensure that the EPA will be able to continue its necessary work for years to come.”

America’s oil and natural gas industry has engaged EPA in recent months over proposed rules for emissions during natural gas production and ozone, as well as its approval of E15 gasoline and other issues. Industry recognizes the agency’s regulatory role, while asserting that EPA should fully consider cost impacts before it takes action – on individual companies and on their work finding and developing the energy America needs.

The Post is right: The exercise of great power must be accompanied by good judgment, and to the extent these cases suggest a lack of judiciousness at EPA, it’s concerning.

View the original article here

Washington Post: Keystone XL Rejection Has ‘Little Rational Basis’

More on the Keystone XL pipeline. The Washington Post editorializes:

“President Obama’s refusal so far to authorize Keystone XL has little rational basis. … Attracting foreign investment in projects that will create U.S. jobs requires predictable regulatory procedures. The way to encourage the efficient extraction and delivery of the oil that the United States will require for decades is to make clear that government won’t use the issue as a political football.”

The editorial makes a couple of other points:

Opponents of Canadian oil sands (and the Keystone XL) are mistaken to believe that stopping the pipeline will keep 170 billion barrels of oil in the ground – because Canada has other means to get the oil to market, as well as other markets willing to buy it.Political skirmishing in Washington has been detrimental to overall progress on the project.

Meanwhile, POLITICO has this guest opinion piece by Karl Rove, pointing to the administration’s Keystone XL rejection as a prime example of a self-inflicted inability to create jobs:

“Exhibit A is the Keystone XL pipeline. It would have brought oil from Canada’s tar sands and North Dakota’s prolific Bakken field to Gulf Coast refineries, factories and chemical plants. This would have created tens of thousands of private-sector jobs and reduced U.S. dependence on [imports]. … No matter. Extreme environmentalists opposed this vital infrastructure project. Rather than offend them, President Barack Obama blocked the pipeline’s construction.”

The two pieces help underscore the point that there are no good reasons to hold up the Keystone XL project, and that the administration is squandering a great opportunity to create jobs and help strengthen U.S. energy security. As the Post says, the president’s refusal to approve this shovel-ready project makes little rational sense.

An all-of-the-above energy approach must include oil and natural gas because it is our primary energy source now and into the future. The Keystone XL pipeline would be an integral part of such a strategy, which could see all of our liquid fuel needs met domestically and from Canada by 2024.

View the original article here

Ohio Summit: Talking Energy, Jobs

Editor’s note, 5/3: The event has concluded; see below for the archived videos.

There’s not a better venue for a high-level discussion of energy, jobs and economic growth than Ohio, where energy-driven expectations are soaring – given the growth from shale development in neighboring Pennsylvania and accelerating work in Ohio’s own Utica Shale play. Thus, today’s “Ohio Energy Jobs Summit” is well located.

Hosted by The Hill newspaper and sponsored by the Coalition for American Jobs, the summit has an array of speakers and panelists scheduled including Gov. John Kasich, U.S. Rep. Bill Johnson of Ohio and API President and CEO Jack Gerard.

Ohio voters certainly have strong expectations for shale exploration and development. A Quinnipiac poll in January showed they overwhelmingly believe that shale = jobs. The survey also showed that most believe the economic benefits from energy development outweigh other concerns.

The half-day discussion from Ohio begins at 9 a.m. You can watch via webcast, here:

You’re also welcome to join in the conversation on Twitter by using the hashtag, #energyjobssummit.

View the original article here

All For Efficiency

A recent post on the White House Blog updates the administration’s effort to see federal agencies make at least $2 billion in energy efficiency upgrades over the next two years. Heather Zichal, deputy assistant to the president for energy and climate change, writes that agencies have identified $2.1 billion in projects that will pay for themselves using performance-based contracts. Zichal:

“Of the $2.1 billion in energy upgrade projects identified by agencies, more than $100 million in Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs) and Utility Energy Savings Contracts (UESCs) have been awarded already, and an additional $1.2 billion in projects are in development – demonstrating strong momentum towards meeting the President’s goal.”

Later, Zichal notes that increased energy efficiency has a multitude of benefits:

“[It’s] one of the fastest, easiest, and cheapest ways to create jobs, save money, and cut down on harmful pollution. … In this pursuit, we take an all-in approach. Whether it’s the historic fuel economy standards that will nearly double the miles you can go on a gallon, or investments that have led to more than a million homes weatherized across the country – we keep building on efficiency, and we keep betting on American workers and American know-how to help create a secure energy future.”

Clearly, the country is becoming more energy efficient, as this chart from the Energy Information Administration, showing energy use per capita (green line) and projections (1980-2035), shows: 

America’s oil and natural gas companies share the goal of increased energy efficiency. ExxonMobil’s Ken Cohen calls efficiency “our most powerful energy solution.” Cohen writes:

“Efficiency — technologies and actions that enable us to do the same, or more, only with less energy — is often overlooked as an answer to the question of how we will meet rising energy demand safely and affordably, while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

Industry has invested heavily in efficiency measures – devoting more than $239 billion since 1990 to improve the performance of its products, facilities and operations. API’s 2012 State of American Energy report:

“Energy efficiency is the cleanest, quickest and most cost-effective way to extend today’s energy supply into the future. The efficient use of energy is not only a core value of the oil and natural gas industry, it’s also a daily practice.”

Some examples:

Technological advances, such as 3D seismic visualization and horizontal drilling let companies access resources more precisely and with less impact on the environment. It used to take a 20-acre drill site to access an area of one square mile underground. Today, 80 square miles can be accessed with a drill site as small as two acres. Half as many wells are needed to produce the same amount of energy as 20 years ago.Submersible, remotely operated vehicles allow deepwater operators to install, monitor and repair underwater equipment using less energy.Plants and refinery upgrades have increased facility energy efficiency.Combined heat and power, or cogeneration, technologies use excess heat from to produce additional energy, for example, in refineries.Carbon-reducing technologies that help promote greater overall efficiency attracted more than $70 billion in industry investments 2000-2010 – well more than the federal government over the same period and nearly as much as all other private industries combined.

When it comes to energy efficiency, America’s oil and natural gas companies are on it.

View the original article here

To the President’s Ear: Build the Keystone XL

In an interview with Fox Business Channel this week, billionaire Warren Buffett voiced support for construction of the Keystone XL pipeline:

"I’m not an expert, but it certainly seems like it makes sense to me. There are an awful lot of pipelines running in the United States and net, they've certainly been a huge plus for the country. … Based on what I know, I would say it makes sense.”

That the “Oracle of Omaha” supports the Keystone XL is significant. That Buffett’s support for the project follows similar opinions by others known to have the president’s ear is important as well. These include:

Former President Bill Clinton (Feb. 29, 2012):

“I think we should embrace [the Keystone XL pipeline] and develop a stakeholder-driven system of high standards for doing the work." 

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka (May 6, 2012):

“[America’s unions] are not divided on the pipeline itself. They are divided on how the pipeline is done. … I think we are all unanimous by saying we should build the pipeline, but we have to do it consistent with all environmental standards, and I think we can work that out, I really do, and we are for that happening.”

Former Obama ‘car czar” Steve Rattner (Jan. 5, 2012):

“My instinct is [the president] should approve it. My instinct is we need the energy, we need the jobs and it can be done in a safe way.”

Let’s see. That’s one of the most successful businessmen in the history of the planet, a former president, one of organized labor’s top leaders and one of the administration’s former leading economic policy advisors – all in favor of the Keystone XL, a project that would create jobs, deliver energy and help boost our country’s future energy security.

The president is the reason the Keystone XL remains on the drawing board. He has the authority to end more than three years of reviewing and delaying. API Executive Vice President Marty Durbin, in a conference call with reporters:

“We’d like to remind the president and the Congress that bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate have voted in favor of the Keystone XL project, and a recent Gallop poll shows strong public support for project by a 2-1 margin.  In addition, the state of Nebraska is fully engaged in a process to quickly choose a new route that avoids sensitive areas. To borrow from the president’s campaign, it’s time to move forward on this critical project.  Keystone XL is as ‘good-to-go’ as it gets.”

To recap: Buffett, Clinton, Trumka, Rattner. The president has listened to them before. Is he listening now, on the Keystone XL?

View the original article here

The Demand for Energy and Steel

There’s a good story going on in Lorain, Ohio, a steel town that has seen ups and downs. Thanks to the surge in production of energy from shale in neighboring Pennsylvania, the current trend is decidedly up.

John Wilkinson, who manages U.S. Steel’s Lorain tubular operations facility that makes steel pipe, says good years (2007-08) were followed by the economic downturn in 2009. Layoffs were ordered. Shale has played a big role in turning things around, building demand for steel products including casings to line wells and extraction tubing. Wilkinson:

“Now with the upturn in the economy, the things we’re seeing from the Marcellus Shale and the increase in production, we’ve had the opportunity to recall almost all of those people and actually hire an additional 300 people in the last 18 months.”

Check out this video for a sense of the hope and opportunity that’s come to Lorain through the shale/hydraulic fracturing revolution:

It’s not just one community or one company. Shale plays around the country are generating energy, jobs and economic growth.

View the original article here

E15: A Fuel Before Its Time

E15 – gasoline containing 15 percent ethanol that has EPA approval  – is one of those ideas that looks good on paper but seems headed for problems in the real world. API’s Bob Greco, director for downstream and industry operations, outlined some of them for reporters during a conference call:

Testing so far shows the higher concentration of ethanol would not be fully compatible with much of the dispensing and storage equipment the nation’s gas stations. A recent API review estimated half of the existing retail outlet equipment isn’t E15 compatible.As a result, there could be damage to equipment, safety problems and potential environmental concerns at gas stations.Difficulties with E15 getting into the market could erode public support for the nation’s renewable fuels program.Refiners could face problems in the future, caught between satisfying federal requirements for blended fuels and the lack of a retail market for those fuels.

Greco said EPA’s E15 approval isn’t a mandate to sell and that the timing of its emergence into the marketplace will depend on clearing hurdles in individual states. Still, the concern is that E15 wasn’t thoroughly evaluated before it got EPA approval.

“The availability of biofuels for blending in gasoline is a good thing because of its favorable octane, and the industry supports a realistic and workable Renewable Fuels Standard.  In fact, more than 90 percent of all gasoline sold in the country has a 10 percent blend of ethanol.  But EPA has not done its homework before introducing E15 to America.  The Agency’s enthusiasm for E15 has clouded its judgment and led to approval of a fuel before adequate study has been done.”

Compatibility issues loom large, Greco said. “Even with vehicles the EPA says are compatible, automakers disagree,” he said. Last summer U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin forwarded letters from car companies to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson that outline their E15 concerns. A sampling:

Ford: “Ford does not support the introduction of E15 into the marketplace for the legacy fleet. … Fuel not approved in the owner’s manual is considered misfueling and any damage resulting from misfueling is not covered by the warranty.”

Chrysler: “We are not confident that our vehicles will not be damaged from the use of E15. … The warranty information provided to our customers specifically notes that use of the blends beyond E10 will void the warranty.”

Honda: “Vehicle engines were not designed or built to accommodate the higher concentrations of ethanol.  … There appears to be the potential for engine failure.”

Ultimately, Greco said, consumers might become confused and ultimately could bear higher costs:

“Without a market for the higher ethanol blends, Congress’ biofuels mandate could result in higher compliance costs or production constraints that could place upward pressure on gasoline prices for consumers.”

One questioner asked whether NASCAR’s use of higher-ethanol fuel suggests E15 concerns are overstated. “I don’t know about you,” Greco said, “but I don’t drive a race car.”

View the original article here

Facts, Not Excuses, Should Guide Decision on Re-Routed Keystone XL

It’s good to hear that TransCanada has submitted its new application for a presidential permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline. The application comes just weeks after the Nebraska legislature approved a bill to move forward with a new route in that state that avoids the sensitive Sand Hills region.

Even better news would be that the White House, after a long list of excuses that prevented timely approval of the project, is now ready to give the go-ahead – dropping a position that a Washington Post editorial said has “little rational basis.” That analysis is reinforced not only by public opinion, but also by economic and environmental data. For example:

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 recently voted to support construction of Keystone XL, the fifth time the House has backed the project. In March, 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.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. In addition, a comprehensive environmental assessment from the federal government concluded that the Keystone XL would have only “limited” impacts and be the safest pipeline ever constructed under current regulations.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.

The application also comes as a new poll finds that Canadians support increased oil sands development by about a 2-1 margin. Among all provinces, the lowest level of support was in Quebec, where a clear majority – 55 percent – still supports development.

API Executive Vice President Marty Durbin said it’s time to approve the Keystone XL:

“The earth hasn’t moved, the geology hasn’t changed, the information remains the same, so there should be no reason for a re-review of KXL. The pipeline will be state of the art and has already been thoroughly examined for more than three years, including three environmental assessments. … The president should take this opportunity to approve the entire pipeline to demonstrate he is serious about an ‘all the above’ energy strategy. There is no legitimate reason for delaying this project any further. … We urge President Obama to support this project that will make us more energy secure.”

View the original article here

May 5, Looking for Work

by Randy Right
(Alabama,Monore)

High my name is Randy Right ,an i am looking for a job on a oilrig offshore or land. jedrich2001@yahoo.com

View the original article here