Mar 28, roustabout

by James T.
(California )

I'm currenty on active duty in the Marine Corps. In Afghanistan as of right now. My current service contract will end in the last part of 2013. Offshore oil drilling work is on the top of my list for careers I want to pursue once I enter the civilian job field.

By the end of this contract I'll have eight years experience as a helicopter mechanic, Quality Assurance along with other qualifications, and supervisory experience.

So far your site is the most informative I found; especially with the list of required certificates to become a roustabout.

My question: Some of the certificates you've listed I have through the Navy. Some were prerequisites to sea service aboard ship. I'm wondering if the Navy certificates will carry over into the civilian world or if I'll have to get the civilian equivilant. It's hard to research this because the internet out here sucks.
The three you listed as necassary were:
-"A seamans ticket or bridge-duty certificate"
How does one get this?
-"A BOSIET (Basic Offshore Safety Induction and Emergency Training) Certificate"
I have Navy certification that would cover this area to include offshore fire fighting.
These two may have expired as it's been a couple years since I've been aboard ship. but if Navy certs will carry over it would be easy to renew them.
-"HUET (Helicopter Underwater Escape Training )Certificate)"
I'm helicopter aircrew. It's mandatory for me to maintain this. Along with water and sea survival.
The fork lift operators and the rest of the certificates you list the Navy or military has it's own equivilant but I don't know if they will carry over into the civilial world.

Like I said above, I have some time before I get out and start the job hunting adventure. I'm looking for information as to what I can do now to put myself in the front of the recruitment field later.

Thanks for any information,
James T.

ANSWER
Good job you guys are doing!

-"A seamans ticket or bridge-duty certificate"
How does one get this? NOT ESSENTIAL JUST UESFUL

-"A BOSIET (Basic Offshore Safety Induction and Emergency Training) Certificate" MUST BE OPITO APPROVED nothing is accepted as a substitute as far as I know, it si a 4 day course and includes -"HUET (Helicopter Underwater Escape Training )Certificate)" so both are covered

View the original article here

Blogger Conference Call – Gas Prices

Earlier this week, API hosted a conference call with bloggers to discuss rising gasoline prices and to correct misinformation about the factors that figure into the prices Americans pay at the pump. API Chief Economist John Felmy explained that crude oil costs account for 76 percent of the prices Americans pay for gasoline. Although crude oil is a global commodity, Felmy said that the United States is not powerless in dealing with global markets because, in fact, “we’re energy rich and have lots of options.”

In his opening statement, Felmy called for the United States to help put downward pressure on fuel price:

“America’s oil and natural gas companies believe a preemptive surrender to the global marketplace and world events is absolutely the wrong policy…Although the president repeatedly talks of very limited U.S. resources, it’s just not so.  Although his rhetoric suggests that he only sees the effect of global markets resulting from decreasing demand through efficiency and conservation strategies, we think there’s a greater effect that producing more oil could have.  Markets are driven by expectations, and it’s time the United States began sending the markets the message that America’s serious about developing its ample resources to help exert downward pressure on fuel price.”

Felmy also explained that increasing taxes on oil and natural gas companies could have the opposite effect and actually increase prices at the pump. “I have never understood arithmetic that tells you, you raise an industry’s cost of producing the fuel and it’s going to lower prices,” he said.

For more information, I encourage you to take a look at our new gas prices website, GasPricesExplained.org, and read through the full transcript below. If you still have questions about gas prices, leave a comment on this post or submit your question on Energy Answered.

API Blogger Conference Call on Gas Prices - 03.26.12

View the original article here

Itching for Floor Fight Over Higher Energy Taxes

Why did energy supporters in the U.S. Senate stand aside to allow consideration of legislation they oppose – raising taxes on America’s oil and natural gas companies? After all, there were more than enough votes to keep the proposal from coming to the floor.

Simple, in politics you choose the fights you think you can win, and Senate opponents of higher energy taxes feel like they’ve got the American people behind them.

Here’s why. A spate of surveys shows that strong majorities of Americans favor more production of oil and natural gas here at home. Both Gallup and Rasmussen have new polls showing Americans support construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day from neighbor and ally Canada. Another Rasmussen survey indicates 2-1 support for developing energy from shale via hydraulic fracturing.

Then there was a Pew Research Center poll that suggests the reason for the findings in the others. Pew found that as gasoline prices rise, so does Americans’ interest in greater oil and natural gas production.

A Harris Interactive poll ties things together: It found 76 percent of voters nationwide believe higher taxes on the country’s energy producers could cost them more at the gas pump – which the Congressional Research Service substantiated in a report last year.

Americans’ reaction to increasing fuel costs – driven higher by the rising cost of crude on the global market – is understandable. They’re saying let’s have policies and strategies that could put downward pressure on crude supply as opposed to policies that would make energy producers’ operations costlier – potentially reducing exploration, development and production while elevating prices.

Thus, a Senate debate that supporters of more oil and natural gas production are eager for the American people to see and hear.

View the original article here

Working Through the Tax Hike Spin

With the U.S. Senate getting ready to debate proposals that would raise taxes on American energy companies, the White House blog spins:

"Instead of subsidizing the fossil fuels of the last century by giving away $4 billion of taxpayer money each year to oil companies that are more profitable than ever, we should be investing in a clean energy future—especially when gas prices are high and drivers, whose budgets are already stretched thin, are feeling the pain at the pump."

In reverse order, taking on the White House’s points:
Yesterday’s energy – We thought the administration had shelved this rhetoric, but it’s back – despite government data showing that oil and natural gas not only is today’s energy, it’s tomorrow’s as well. According to the Energy Information Administration more than 55 percent of our energy will be supplied by oil and gas in 2035.
Subsidies/taxpayer money giveaways – Here the blog is inaccurate, and it matters. The oil and natural gas industry receives zero targeted subsidies from government, period. It uses tax deductions generally available to U.S. business. A deduction is not a subsidy. See here, and here.
API Tax Policy Manager Stephen Comstock, who spoke with reporters on a conference call Monday:

“Some bad ideas never seem to go away, which may explain why the U.S. Senate is again scheduled to vote on a proposal to single out the U.S. oil and natural gas industry for billions of dollars in tax increases.  And some are even suggesting that repealing ordinary business tax provisions for our industry is part of the answer to high gasoline prices. Let’s be clear: This proposal is not about addressing gasoline prices.  Higher taxes will not result in lower fuel prices.  In fact, a recent Congressional Research Service analysis concludes that actions like this could increase fuel prices.”

Whether the president believes the CRS isn’t as important, politically, as this: The American people believe it – 76 percent telling a recent Harris Interactive survey that they think raising taxes on oil and natural gas companies could end up costing them more at the pump.
More from Comstock:

“Other supporters of this proposal will point at company profits and claim that their proposal will ensure our industry ‘pays its fair share.’  Singling out five companies for higher taxes is not about fairness.  When did being profitable become a dirty word?  The owners of those companies – the people who benefit from those profits – are the people who own shares in those companies, in their 401(k)s, IRAs, pension plans and other accounts.”

Energy tax facts cited by Comstock:
The oil and natural gas industry delivers $86 million a day to the U.S. treasury in taxes, rental payments, royalties and other production fees – more than $30 billion a year. More is delivered to state and local governments.The industry pays more in taxes than any other industry, and its effective tax rate is substantially higher than the average for the other S&P Industrials – 41 percent versus 26 percent.A study by Wood Mackenzie found that the right policies in place, allowing the industry to produce more oil and natural gas at home, could increase cumulative government revenue by $150 billion by 2025. Comstock:

“Had those policies been in place over the last few years, it would already be reflected in additional government revenues.  We would not have lost an estimated $5 billion from slower development in the Gulf of Mexico, for example.”

Raising taxes, Comstock said, would show an initial rise in government revenues, which would fall after about five years, and 20 years from now the country could face a cumulative $65 billion shortfall. There could be lost jobs and energy production in less than 10 years.
There’s a better idea: Let America’s oil and natural gas companies find and develop more American energy. Comstock:

“There’s a simple answer to getting more government revenue from the oil and natural gas industry – allow us to produce more of the energy our nation and our economy will need for decades to come right here at home.  Not only will this create jobs and generate government revenue, it will send a strong signal to energy markets that could put downward pressure on fuel prices.”

View the original article here

Study: EPA’s Tier III Proposal Would Increase Fuel-Making Costs

At a time when just everyone is understandably concerned about fuel prices, EPA apparently didn’t get the memo. Its latest thinking on a Tier III refinery rulemaking would add significant costs to the making of gasoline, according to a new analysis by Baker & O’Brien, Inc.

During a recent conference call with reporters, API’s Bob Greco, group director for downstream and industry operations, talked about the impacts on refiners of the proposed rule to further reduce sulfur levels in gasoline:

Nearly $10 billion in new capital costs to industry.Increase of between 6 cents and 9 cents per gallon to the cost of manufacturing gasoline, according to Baker & O’Brien.Increase of as much as 25 cents per gallon if a vapor pressure reduction requirement, which EPA considered, is included.

Greco:

“With the pump price of gasoline already above $4 a gallon in some parts of the country, this added burden clearly makes Tier III the wrong regulation at the wrong time. More importantly, EPA has yet to demonstrate any air quality benefits from reducing sulfur in the amount proposed. And, as the Baker & O’Brien analysis also shows, implementing the new requirements would increase refinery greenhouse gas emissions because of the use of energy-intensive hydrotreating equipment to remove sulfur from the gasoline.”

EPA claims the new rule wouldn’t be a hardship. But Greco said the agency cites a “low-ball cost estimate” that uses flawed modeling about what U.S. refineries would have to do to be in compliance. Although EPA has dropped the gasoline vapor pressure requirement, industry doesn’t believe the provision is off the table.

The Baker & O’Brien analysis found that while the sulfur requirement alone probably wouldn’t lead to refinery closures, Tier III in tandem with other potential EPA requirements could cause some refineries to close, resulting in diminished fuel manufacturing capacity and increased reliance on imported fuels – all for what Baker & O’Brien said would be modest environmental benefits. Greco:

“Refinery regulations clearly contribute to a cleaner environment and safer workplace, but, unnecessary, inefficient, and excessively costly requirements hamper our ability to provide and distribute fuels to America, while also employing hundreds of thousands of people and enhancing our national security. We have already seen some refineries close, at least in part due to the cumulative impact of environmental controls. We urge the administration to take a step back on Tier III and its other proposed rules. We must be sure that new regulatory proposals are necessary, properly crafted, practical, and fair to allow US refiners to remain competitive, preserve good paying refinery jobs, and ensure our energy security.”

View the original article here