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

Feb 2, I Understand that....

by Orlando Sellers Jr
(Gulfport Ms)

I Am trying to git a job off shore i just turned 18 and I have a moma that work offshore and she work for rowan and i am seeing that i can see if you can send me apucation for i can git a job i got a 4months child and i need to git somthing goin can you write me back am my email Sellers,Orlando@Jobcorps.org

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 Employment.



View the original article here

Feb 25, wasted time

by dr,vagode
(mumbai)

when i completed my medicine back in the 90s there were a few doctors who said that offshore companies pay so much compared to what a hospital will pay.I was truly happy and got into this rig medic business and wasted so many years that today I regret and looking back feel that I should have started a clinic,done a pg in MS,MD and gone up in life.

I will like to advise doctors especially MBBS qualified this job is for people like compounders,who have fake degrees or who are qualified in HOMEOPATHIC,UNNANI OR SIDDHA medicine as they do not have any other future.

View the original article here

Facts Support Fracking

In December 2010 Jane Van Ryan put up a post urging us to not rush to judgment on fracking. The case in question was in Texas where the EPA issued an emergency order:

"…that 'tried, convicted and sentenced' a natural gas company accused of polluting two water wells in Texas with methane gas. Weeks later, evidence shows that the company Range Resources was not responsible for the methane leaks. As the article authored by Alex Mills of the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers explains, the water wells were drilled in 2005 and Range Resources drilled two natural gas wells nearby in 2009. In August this year, the water wells' owners complained to the state agency that oversees oil and natural gas drilling that their wells had become contaminated. They blamed Range Resources.  Tests showed, however, that the methane did not come from Range's natural gas wells. In a meeting with EPA officials, Range Resources learned that an EPA engineer acknowledged that the hydraulic fracturing process, also known as fracking, in the deep natural gas wells was not the cause."

The evidence was clear that fracking did not cause the problem, so clear in fact, that 15 months later the EPA has finally withdrawn its “imminent and substantial endangerment order.” Energy In Depth notes:

"But while today’s filing finally puts an end to a case whose scientific foundation had cracked, then crumbled, then outright disintegrated many months before, it reignites the conversation about what’s become a troubling trend for EPA: Every time EPA intervenes in a high-profile case – generating scads of maligning headlines about shale and hydraulic fracturing in the process – the agency ends up getting it wrong."

More from the Wall Street Journal:

"In addition to dropping the case in Texas, the EPA has agreed to substantial retesting of water in Wyoming after its methods were questioned. And in Pennsylvania, it has angered state officials by conducting its own analysis of well water—only to confirm the state’s finding that water once tainted by gas was safe. Taken together, some experts say, these misfires could hurt the agency’s credibility…"

The industry is committed to producing energy from shale safely and responsibly, and in addition to strong industry standards, there are appropriate federal and state regulations in place for oil and natural gas operations, including those that employ hydraulic fracturing. And many state rules have recently been strengthened. For this to work, however, we need government to be committed to responsible regulation and enforcement. The EPA’s troubling pattern of seeking maximum publicity for hydraulic fracturing cases before the facts are in serves neither the public nor the environment. This is not a three strikes and you are out situation, but it should be a wake-up for the EPA that changes are needed in their approach.


View the original article here

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

Graphically Speaking: Investment Climate Matters

Congressman @TomRooney says defeatist attitude blocking #KeystoneXL, #jobs, #energy. http://t.co/foeOZ4OH


View the original article here

Raising Energy Taxes – The Wrong Approach

Update: The U.S. Senate failed to reach the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture and the motion failed 51-47. (29 Mar 2012)

Today the Senate will vote to advance S.2204 sponsored by Sen. Menendez (D-NJ). This bill will raise taxes on major integrated oil and natural gas companies to subsidize other forms of energy and will do absolutely nothing to lower gasoline prices.

A new poll conducted by Harris Interactive, from March 9-13 of registered voters nationwide, found that 76% of voters believe that increasing energy taxes could increase consumer costs on a wide variety of products, including higher gasoline prices.

American voters overwhelming oppose higher taxes!

Additionally, this bill claims to end alleged “subsidies” for a handful of oil and natural gas companies. However, nothing could be further from the truth. The U.S. oil and natural gas industry does not receive “subsidized” payments from the government to produce oil and gas. In fact, the Wall Street Journal editorial board states “the truth is that this industry is subsidizing the government.” The US oil and natural gas industry on average pays over $86 million every day to the federal government in taxes, rents, royalties and lease payments.

U.S. oil and natural gas companies pay considerably more of its profits in taxes than the average manufacturing company. In fact, in 2010, the industry paid more in total taxes than any other industry sector while averaging a 41% effective tax rate. Also in 2010, oil and natural gas companies directly contributed over $470 billion to the U.S. economy in spending, wages, and dividends – more than half the size of the 2009 federal stimulus package ($787 billion) – only this stimulus didn’t require an act of Congress.

Below are more details on the specific negative effects of the tax provisions that are included in the Menendez bill:

Dual Capacity/Foreign Tax Credit denial: API’s one pager discussing how this will make American companies uncompetitive abroad is here and there are more in-depth studies on this topic here, here and here. Despite rhetoric, the provision they seek to modify ironically is a more stringent rule on taxpayers like the oil and gas industry that has, for the last 3 decades, ensured abuses do not occur. The foreign tax credit can only be used to offset foreign income taxes paid and not any other payment. Without this foreign tax credit, which has been in place since 1918, US-based companies would be substantially disadvantaged when trying to develop foreign opportunities. Specifically, companies would face the cost of double taxation on foreign operations, while their competitors would only be taxed once.Sec. 199 repeal: Section 199 is available to every single domestic manufacturer and extractive industry that qualifies and is in no way unique to the oil and gas industry. As seen here, the oil and gas industry is already penalized with respect to others as we receive a 6% deduction on income from qualified activities; everyone else receives a 9% deduction. This provision was put into place in the American Jobs Creation Act in 2004 to create and keep jobs in the U.S. – exactly what we are doing. We support 9.2 million jobs in the U.S. and contribute to 7.7% of GDP. By removing this provision from just a handful of companies it sends the message a job in the oil and gas industry is not as “valuable” as a job at Starbucks or the New York Times (both of whom get 199 at 9%). Studies have shown repealing Sec. 199 (and IDC below) for the entire industry could put 165,000 direct/indirect jobs at risk by 2020.Repeal of drilling cost deduction (IDCs): Just like the R&D deduction (comparison here) our companies can deduct costs associated with the labor and construction of a well. As you can see in this one-pager, these costs, typically 60-80% of the cost of a well, are simply cost recovery with respect to timing – there is no credit or government subsidy here. Cost recovery allows us to put that money back into projects, technology and high wages. The average upstream wage is approx $98,000/yr. This provision is not unique to the Code and could compromise thousands of jobs and billions of dollars worth of capital – in fact, this repeal along with (Sec. 199 above) could compromise 10% of America’s oil and gas production capacity by 2017.Percentage depletion: The major integrated US oil and gas companies (the target of this amendment) are not eligible for percentage depletion and have not been for over 30 years. IPAA has more on how this affects independent producers.Repeal of tertiary injectant deduction: The U.S. is a mature oil producing region but still contains many viable fields whose lives are extended through the use of tertiary injectants. These efforts secure additional U.S. production and enable many production companies to remain in business. Changing how these costs are recovered could force producers to shut in older fields and significantly impact local economies. This deduction supports using carbon dioxide in enhanced oil recovery projects, one of the primary methods by which carbon dioxide is currently stored to prevent its release into the atmosphere.

Without unfair and punitive tax increases and unnecessary new regulations - we could create 1 million more new jobs in just seven years and increase revenue to the government by $127 billion by 2020. By 2030, this program of development could boost government revenue by $800 billion and increase daily production of oil and natural gas by 10 million barrels. Add to this more imports from Canada and increased domestic bio-fuel use and we could within 15 years have the capability to secure all of our liquid fuels from North American sources.

America’s oil and natural gas companies are owned by tens of millions of Americans. More than 29 percent of shares are held in mutual funds; 27 percent are held in pension funds; 23 percent are owned by individual investors; 14 percent are held in IRAs. Five percent are held by institutions and only 1.5 percent of industry shares are owned by corporate management. Raising taxes on America’s energy producers, businesses, and retirement plans is the wrong approach to rebuilding our economy. Therefore, these tax increases are nothing more than a billion dollar tax increase on America’s oil and natural gas industry, our employees, and our nation’s retirees.


View the original article here

Before You Dig: 811

April is National Safe Digging Month, and America's oil and natural gas companies join with the Common Ground Alliance on a simple message: Call 811 a few days before any digging project. API Pipeline Director Peter Lidiak:

"Eight-one-one should become as familiar to Americans as 911. April is the traditional start of digging season.  We strongly encourage individuals and companies to call 811 before they begin digging.  Millions of us live, work or play near or above pipelines and other underground infrastructure.  We need to protect it by calling 811.”


API encourages homeowners and professional excavators to:

Always call 811 a few days before digging, regardless of the depth or familiarity with the property.Plan ahead.  Call on Monday or Tuesday for work planned for an upcoming weekend, providing ample time for the approximate location of lines to be marked.Confirm with your local one call center that all lines have been markedLearn what the various colors of pain and flags represent at Call 811 FAQs.Consider moving the location of your project if it is near utility line markings.If a contractor has been hired, confirm that a call to 811 has been made.  Don’t allow work to begin if the lines aren’t marked.

For more information, visit Call 811 today to learn more about 811 and safe digging practices.


View the original article here

Mar 14, Rig Mechanic job wanted!

by Brian Paine
(Copperas Cove, Texas, USA)

I do not have all the required offshore safety certificates or medical certificates. I do have a valid passport and I am ready to go to work. I do not have any former offshore experience but I am adept with tools and machinery having worked in the military for the last 16 years as a electronic/mechanical mechanic. I have worked on and operated equipment in weight limits of 72 tons and below. I have extensive knowledge of hydraulics, electronics, power distribution, air brakes, power trains, crane operations, and forklifts. I have good safety ethics. I have never missed a day of work due to my own negligence and I am currently up to date on posted OSHA guidelines. I have compeleted 3 semester hours of college majoring in diesel mechanics at Central Texas College. during my time in the military I have been put into situations that required me to either work as a team or risk the lost of life. I believe having this type of training has developed me into the perfect team player. If anyone out there looking for someone who can get the job done, then I am the one.


brianpaine73@yahoo.com

View the original article here