EnerMech Scores Work for BG Group's North Sea Fields

Mechanical engineering services company, EnerMech, has been awarded a process services contract by BG Group which could be worth up to $24 million (GBP 16 million).

The three year contract (+1 year option) covers all BG Group's UK North Sea assets including the Lomond, North Everest and Armada platforms.

The workscope includes the provision of topside process, flange management and nitrogen services and is the first contract EnerMech has secured with BG Group.

Aberdeen-based EnerMech said the contract win will create new jobs and take its total workforce to more than 1,400.

EnerMech's director of Process, Pipeline & Umbilicals, Les Graves, said: "We are looking forward to assisting BG Group in supporting their assets in the North Sea and this award reaffirms our position as a major supplier of process services to the oil and gas sector."

In January EnerMech acquired Australian valves engineering and servicing company, Valve Tech Engineering, in a multi-million pound deal which followed the acquisition in December of Cape Town based Water Weights International SA (Pty) Ltd which specializes in heavy load testing of cranes and lifting equipment.

Generated by readers, the comments included herein do not reflect the views and opinions of Rigzone. All comments are subject to editorial review. Off-topic, inappropriate or insulting comments will be removed.

View the original article here

EnerMech Scores Work for BG Group's North Sea Fields

Mechanical engineering services company, EnerMech, has been awarded a process services contract by BG Group which could be worth up to $24 million (GBP 16 million).

The three year contract (+1 year option) covers all BG Group's UK North Sea assets including the Lomond, North Everest and Armada platforms.

The workscope includes the provision of topside process, flange management and nitrogen services and is the first contract EnerMech has secured with BG Group.

Aberdeen-based EnerMech said the contract win will create new jobs and take its total workforce to more than 1,400.

EnerMech's director of Process, Pipeline & Umbilicals, Les Graves, said: "We are looking forward to assisting BG Group in supporting their assets in the North Sea and this award reaffirms our position as a major supplier of process services to the oil and gas sector."

In January EnerMech acquired Australian valves engineering and servicing company, Valve Tech Engineering, in a multi-million pound deal which followed the acquisition in December of Cape Town based Water Weights International SA (Pty) Ltd which specializes in heavy load testing of cranes and lifting equipment.

Generated by readers, the comments included herein do not reflect the views and opinions of Rigzone. All comments are subject to editorial review. Off-topic, inappropriate or insulting comments will be removed.

View the original article here

Group’s new oil shale report contains wildly inaccurate claims

The Institute for Energy Research (IER), recently posted a blog about oil shale that doesn’t have its facts straight.

The IER blog falsely claims that the federal government put oil shale resources ‘under lock and key’. Oil shale companies have been awarded billions in taxpayer-funded subsidies and received research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) leases on publicly owned lands that don’t require the payment of bonuses, rents, or royalties.

Despite more than a century of failed oil shale projects and billions of dollars risked, taxpayers are still subsidizing oil shale research and development. Currently, there are seven such RD&D leases being pursued in Colorado and Utah.  The companies include: Shell, American Shale Oil (AMSO), Enefit, ExxonMobil, and Natural Soda Holdings.

Chevron also had an RD&D holding, but abandoned it last February in order to focus on viable energy sources – hardly the first oil shale experiment to go

bust. On Black Sunday, Exxon closed its Colony oil shale project, which put more than 2,000 out of work and devastated the economy of Colorado’s western slope for years.

Arial photo of a pile of oil shale ‘ash’ in Estonia. Source: EcoCrete Project.

In their blog, IER also highlights Estonia, considered the world leader in oil shale, as the prime example of successful oil shale development – but that’s no

t factual either. Oil shale isn’t economically viable in Estonia, has caused significant water, air and land pollution, and is highly controversial.

The head of Estonia’s biggest oil shale company, Eestia Energia – known as Enefit in the U.S. – has admitted that oil shale is not profitable without large taxpayer subsidies. Underscoring this point was Moody’s recent move downgrading Enefit’s credit rating to negative, over concerns that they can’t make oil shale profitable.

In addition, oil shale is a dirty, polluting fossil fuel that’s responsible for 80 percent of all of Estonia’s pollution.  Enefit’s track record includes contaminated groundwater, creating 600-foot high mountains of oil shale waste that spontaneously ignite, and causing the emission of “lots of carbon dioxide.”

IER’s blog also boasts that there are huge oil shale deposits in the U.S. But these projections are irrelevant because oil shale isn’t a viable energy source and fails the basic economic test. In other words, the return on oil shale doesn’t outweigh the investment. The amount of energy and water that it takes to superheat, mine and process oil shale – which is actually fossilized algae – is more than the energy that oil shale provides. If you need more evidence just look to the billion dollar oil and gas industry, which has almost limitless resources, and has 100 plus years of failed oil shale experiments to show for their efforts.

The IER can spin oil shale all day, but it won’t change the cold hard fact that oil shale isn’t ready for prime time.

View the original article here

Groups Praise Revenue Sharing Bill, Call for More Access to US Acreage

The American Petroleum Institute (API) and National Ocean Industries Association welcomed an offshore revenue sharing bill proposed by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) Wednesday.

The senators this week introduced Fixing America's Inequality with Revenues (FAIR) Act, which is designed to ensure all energy-producing states receive a full share of the revenues they help produce while also encouraging investments in clean energy and conservation.

"The federal treasury benefits from the royalties and taxes on production in federally owned waters off Alaska's coast," said Murkowski in a statement Tuesday. "Providing a portion of that money to Alaska would help the state strengthen its emergency response capabilities and build critical infrastructure, such as airfields, deepwater ports, and docks that will help safely open the Arctic, which will further increase federal revenues."

The FAIR Act would provide up to 37.5 percent of all revenues from offshore development to coastal states, including revenues from oil and gas and the development of alternative and renewable energy resources.

Under the bill, states would automatically receive 27.5 percent of these revenues, 25 percent of which would go to the coastal communities most impacted by offshore development. States are eligible for an additional 10 percent if they establish funds to support projects relating to clean energy or conservation.

The bill also would expand revenue sharing onshore to include renewable energy production on federal lands at the same 50-percent share currently given for oil and gas production. The bulk of revenues from offshore development, 62.5 percent, would still flow to the federal government.

The legislation marks an important step towards an all-of-the-above energy policy for the United States, said API Director of Upstream & Industry Operations Erik Milito in a statement Wednesday.

"As today's successful lease sale in the Central Gulf of Mexico demonstrates, the industry is investing billions in American energy development but could do more if additional areas are opened for business," Milito commented. "Expanding access could create one million new jobs, generate $127 billion in government revenue in under a decade, and dramatically increase domestic energy production."

Allowing all U.S. coastal states to share in prospective future revenue from both traditional and renewable offshore energy activities is sound public policy, NOIA President Randall Luthi commented in a Wednesday statement. The group has long supported revenue sharing as fair and equitable treatment for coastal states supporting responsible offshore oil and gas exploration and development.

"However, steps must be taken to ensure that lease sales are actually conducted in new areas where they're currently prohibited or else the revenue is merely theoretical."

Karen Boman has more than 10 years of experience covering the upstream oil and gas sector. Email Karen at kboman@rigzone.com.

Generated by readers, the comments included herein do not reflect the views and opinions of Rigzone. All comments are subject to editorial review. Off-topic, inappropriate or insulting comments will be removed.

View the original article here

Groups Praise Revenue Sharing Bill, Call for More Access to US Acreage

The American Petroleum Institute (API) and National Ocean Industries Association welcomed an offshore revenue sharing bill proposed by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) Wednesday.

The senators this week introduced Fixing America's Inequality with Revenues (FAIR) Act, which is designed to ensure all energy-producing states receive a full share of the revenues they help produce while also encouraging investments in clean energy and conservation.

"The federal treasury benefits from the royalties and taxes on production in federally owned waters off Alaska's coast," said Murkowski in a statement Tuesday. "Providing a portion of that money to Alaska would help the state strengthen its emergency response capabilities and build critical infrastructure, such as airfields, deepwater ports, and docks that will help safely open the Arctic, which will further increase federal revenues."

The FAIR Act would provide up to 37.5 percent of all revenues from offshore development to coastal states, including revenues from oil and gas and the development of alternative and renewable energy resources.

Under the bill, states would automatically receive 27.5 percent of these revenues, 25 percent of which would go to the coastal communities most impacted by offshore development. States are eligible for an additional 10 percent if they establish funds to support projects relating to clean energy or conservation.

The bill also would expand revenue sharing onshore to include renewable energy production on federal lands at the same 50-percent share currently given for oil and gas production. The bulk of revenues from offshore development, 62.5 percent, would still flow to the federal government.

The legislation marks an important step towards an all-of-the-above energy policy for the United States, said API Director of Upstream & Industry Operations Erik Milito in a statement Wednesday.

"As today's successful lease sale in the Central Gulf of Mexico demonstrates, the industry is investing billions in American energy development but could do more if additional areas are opened for business," Milito commented. "Expanding access could create one million new jobs, generate $127 billion in government revenue in under a decade, and dramatically increase domestic energy production."

Allowing all U.S. coastal states to share in prospective future revenue from both traditional and renewable offshore energy activities is sound public policy, NOIA President Randall Luthi commented in a Wednesday statement. The group has long supported revenue sharing as fair and equitable treatment for coastal states supporting responsible offshore oil and gas exploration and development.

"However, steps must be taken to ensure that lease sales are actually conducted in new areas where they're currently prohibited or else the revenue is merely theoretical."

Karen Boman has more than 10 years of experience covering the upstream oil and gas sector. Email Karen at kboman@rigzone.com.

Generated by readers, the comments included herein do not reflect the views and opinions of Rigzone. All comments are subject to editorial review. Off-topic, inappropriate or insulting comments will be removed.

View the original article here

Groups Praise Revenue Sharing Bill, Call for More Access to US Acreage

The American Petroleum Institute (API) and National Ocean Industries Association welcomed an offshore revenue sharing bill proposed by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) Wednesday.

The senators this week introduced Fixing America's Inequality with Revenues (FAIR) Act, which is designed to ensure all energy-producing states receive a full share of the revenues they help produce while also encouraging investments in clean energy and conservation.

"The federal treasury benefits from the royalties and taxes on production in federally owned waters off Alaska's coast," said Murkowski in a statement Tuesday. "Providing a portion of that money to Alaska would help the state strengthen its emergency response capabilities and build critical infrastructure, such as airfields, deepwater ports, and docks that will help safely open the Arctic, which will further increase federal revenues."

The FAIR Act would provide up to 37.5 percent of all revenues from offshore development to coastal states, including revenues from oil and gas and the development of alternative and renewable energy resources.

Under the bill, states would automatically receive 27.5 percent of these revenues, 25 percent of which would go to the coastal communities most impacted by offshore development. States are eligible for an additional 10 percent if they establish funds to support projects relating to clean energy or conservation.

The bill also would expand revenue sharing onshore to include renewable energy production on federal lands at the same 50-percent share currently given for oil and gas production. The bulk of revenues from offshore development, 62.5 percent, would still flow to the federal government.

The legislation marks an important step towards an all-of-the-above energy policy for the United States, said API Director of Upstream & Industry Operations Erik Milito in a statement Wednesday.

"As today's successful lease sale in the Central Gulf of Mexico demonstrates, the industry is investing billions in American energy development but could do more if additional areas are opened for business," Milito commented. "Expanding access could create one million new jobs, generate $127 billion in government revenue in under a decade, and dramatically increase domestic energy production."

Allowing all U.S. coastal states to share in prospective future revenue from both traditional and renewable offshore energy activities is sound public policy, NOIA President Randall Luthi commented in a Wednesday statement. The group has long supported revenue sharing as fair and equitable treatment for coastal states supporting responsible offshore oil and gas exploration and development.

"However, steps must be taken to ensure that lease sales are actually conducted in new areas where they're currently prohibited or else the revenue is merely theoretical."

Karen Boman has more than 10 years of experience covering the upstream oil and gas sector. Email Karen at kboman@rigzone.com.

Generated by readers, the comments included herein do not reflect the views and opinions of Rigzone. All comments are subject to editorial review. Off-topic, inappropriate or insulting comments will be removed.

View the original article here

Industry Groups Refute Concerns Over US LNG Export Benefits

Industry associations American Petroleum Institute (API) and the Western Energy Alliance (WEA) jointly called for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to approve applications for U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals beyond the one application that has been approved so far.

In a conference call with reporters Monday, API and WEA officials countered comments by proponents of LNG export restrictions that exporting natural gas would drive up domestic gas prices and put U.S. manufacturers at a disadvantage, arguing that the United States was capable of expanding gas production to meet demand.

The call came as the public comment period ended for DOE's 2012 Liquefied Natural Gas export Cumulative Impact Study, conducted by NERA Economic Consulting for the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Both groups decided to take the opportunity to reply to comments received so far on the study.

"In analyzing the comments, we found none that provided sufficient credible information to undermine the study's basic premise that the overall U.S .economy would greatly benefit from LNG exports, nor any that convincingly make the case for DOE to deny export terminal licenses," WEA said in a Feb. 22 letter to DOE.

Officials noted that expanding U.S. production would benefit consumers by creating new jobs and economic growth for the United States Recent data shows an average 213,000 new jobs per year could be created from 2015 to 2035 and $700 billion in growth could be created in the chemicals and manufacturing industries due to increased natural gas production, Erik Milito, director of upstream and industry operations with API, said.

The increase in U.S. natural gas supply thanks to the shale boom undercuts the main argument of proponents for restricting exports, which is that DOE used outdated supply data in its analysis that said allowing exports would be beneficial, Milito noted.

"The most recent data from DOE confirms that supplies will be very robust. This implies that there is more than sufficient natural gas to meet domestic and export needs with little adverse impact on prices – and that the net economic benefits of allowing exports are even greater than earlier though," Milito added. "The critics simply didn't acknowledge what an energy juggernaut the shale gas revolution has become and that it is still growing.

Further, the DOE study focuses rigidly on production and price increases, with not enough study into the ability of producers to increase capacity. While gas activity has fallen off in certain dry gas basins such as the San Juan, Powder and Green River basins, more associated gas is being produced with oil in the Bakken and Permian plays, meaning that gas production can be increased in response to demand and keep gas prices down, said Kathleen Sgamma, vice president of government and public affairs with WEA, a group that represents over 400 exploration and production companies, mostly smaller producers with less than 15 employees.

Nineteen projects have either been approved or proposed for U.S. public lands that could create jobs and drilling activity if they are allowed to move forward. These projects also could substantially add natural gas production in the western United States, said Sgamma, who pointed out that the most recent study used data that underestimated U.S. gas production.

However, United States should take advantage of its "first-mover" advantage with the abundant shale gas supplies now available and move forward with LNG exports before the window of opportunity runs out, Sgamma commented.

"Other nations are starting to invest in American-developed horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technology to develop their own reserves. Now is the time for the Obama administration to approve LNG export terminal licenses, rather than continuing to delay job creation and economic growth."

To date, DOE has approved one LNG export application for the Sabine Pass project in Louisiana. The facility is scheduled to begin exporting LNG in 2015. Milito said he believes that the United States won't see "unlimited and unfettered" exports, noting that the market will impose natural gas limitations on which projects moved forward following approval by DOE.

Last week, a group of U.S. senators including Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska) urged DOE Secretary Steven Chu to support the NERA Economic Consulting Report on U.S. LNG exports, rebutting comments filed that expressed concerns over whether U.S. LNG exports would be in the U.S. public interest.

"For the United States to be a hub of cheap energy, it is imperative to pursue government policies that allow the private sector to make every energy resource as abundant, accessible and as versatile in its consumption as possible," the senators wrote in a Feb. 21 letter. "Achieving this objective requires that producers be allowed access to markets, and that consumers be allowed access to resources.

"Providing this access without bias for one source over another will encourage more widespread production of all energy resources. This will benefit the economy, as it will be accompanied by increased economic activity, job creation, and more widespread energy choices," the senators commented in the letter.

Proponents of restricting U.S. LNG exports include some U.S. manufacturing and petrochemical companies who argue that exporting gas would raise U.S. domestic prices, putting these companies at a competitive disadvantage versus companies from other countries. Some environmental groups who are opposed to hydraulic fracturing also have expressed opposition to U.S. LNG exports, saying that exporting gas would result in increased hydraulic fracturing activity and that NERA did not factor in environmental damage into the costs of allowing LNG exports.

Karen Boman has more than 10 years of experience covering the upstream oil and gas sector. Email Karen at kboman@rigzone.com.

Generated by readers, the comments included herein do not reflect the views and opinions of Rigzone. All comments are subject to editorial review. Off-topic, inappropriate or insulting comments will be removed.

View the original article here

Industry Groups Refute Concerns Over US LNG Export Benefits

Industry associations American Petroleum Institute (API) and the Western Energy Alliance (WEA) jointly called for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to approve applications for U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals beyond the one application that has been approved so far.

In a conference call with reporters Monday, API and WEA officials countered comments by proponents of LNG export restrictions that exporting natural gas would drive up domestic gas prices and put U.S. manufacturers at a disadvantage, arguing that the United States was capable of expanding gas production to meet demand.

The call came as the public comment period ended for DOE's 2012 Liquefied Natural Gas export Cumulative Impact Study, conducted by NERA Economic Consulting for the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Both groups decided to take the opportunity to reply to comments received so far on the study.

"In analyzing the comments, we found none that provided sufficient credible information to undermine the study's basic premise that the overall U.S .economy would greatly benefit from LNG exports, nor any that convincingly make the case for DOE to deny export terminal licenses," WEA said in a Feb. 22 letter to DOE.

Officials noted that expanding U.S. production would benefit consumers by creating new jobs and economic growth for the United States Recent data shows an average 213,000 new jobs per year could be created from 2015 to 2035 and $700 billion in growth could be created in the chemicals and manufacturing industries due to increased natural gas production, Erik Milito, director of upstream and industry operations with API, said.

The increase in U.S. natural gas supply thanks to the shale boom undercuts the main argument of proponents for restricting exports, which is that DOE used outdated supply data in its analysis that said allowing exports would be beneficial, Milito noted.

"The most recent data from DOE confirms that supplies will be very robust. This implies that there is more than sufficient natural gas to meet domestic and export needs with little adverse impact on prices – and that the net economic benefits of allowing exports are even greater than earlier though," Milito added. "The critics simply didn't acknowledge what an energy juggernaut the shale gas revolution has become and that it is still growing.

Further, the DOE study focuses rigidly on production and price increases, with not enough study into the ability of producers to increase capacity. While gas activity has fallen off in certain dry gas basins such as the San Juan, Powder and Green River basins, more associated gas is being produced with oil in the Bakken and Permian plays, meaning that gas production can be increased in response to demand and keep gas prices down, said Kathleen Sgamma, vice president of government and public affairs with WEA, a group that represents over 400 exploration and production companies, mostly smaller producers with less than 15 employees.

Nineteen projects have either been approved or proposed for U.S. public lands that could create jobs and drilling activity if they are allowed to move forward. These projects also could substantially add natural gas production in the western United States, said Sgamma, who pointed out that the most recent study used data that underestimated U.S. gas production.

However, United States should take advantage of its "first-mover" advantage with the abundant shale gas supplies now available and move forward with LNG exports before the window of opportunity runs out, Sgamma commented.

"Other nations are starting to invest in American-developed horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technology to develop their own reserves. Now is the time for the Obama administration to approve LNG export terminal licenses, rather than continuing to delay job creation and economic growth."

To date, DOE has approved one LNG export application for the Sabine Pass project in Louisiana. The facility is scheduled to begin exporting LNG in 2015. Milito said he believes that the United States won't see "unlimited and unfettered" exports, noting that the market will impose natural gas limitations on which projects moved forward following approval by DOE.

Last week, a group of U.S. senators including Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska) urged DOE Secretary Steven Chu to support the NERA Economic Consulting Report on U.S. LNG exports, rebutting comments filed that expressed concerns over whether U.S. LNG exports would be in the U.S. public interest.

"For the United States to be a hub of cheap energy, it is imperative to pursue government policies that allow the private sector to make every energy resource as abundant, accessible and as versatile in its consumption as possible," the senators wrote in a Feb. 21 letter. "Achieving this objective requires that producers be allowed access to markets, and that consumers be allowed access to resources.

"Providing this access without bias for one source over another will encourage more widespread production of all energy resources. This will benefit the economy, as it will be accompanied by increased economic activity, job creation, and more widespread energy choices," the senators commented in the letter.

Proponents of restricting U.S. LNG exports include some U.S. manufacturing and petrochemical companies who argue that exporting gas would raise U.S. domestic prices, putting these companies at a competitive disadvantage versus companies from other countries. Some environmental groups who are opposed to hydraulic fracturing also have expressed opposition to U.S. LNG exports, saying that exporting gas would result in increased hydraulic fracturing activity and that NERA did not factor in environmental damage into the costs of allowing LNG exports.

Karen Boman has more than 10 years of experience covering the upstream oil and gas sector. Email Karen at kboman@rigzone.com.

Generated by readers, the comments included herein do not reflect the views and opinions of Rigzone. All comments are subject to editorial review. Off-topic, inappropriate or insulting comments will be removed.

View the original article here

BG Group's Barbosa Steps Down as CFO

BG Group announced Friday that Fabio Barbosa will step down from his role as Chief Financial Officer to become Chairman of BG South America for personal reasons. Barbosa has also stepped down as a member of BG's Group Executive Committee as well as a number of other committees.

As Chairman of BG South America, based in Rio de Janeiro, Barbosa will provide senior counsel and advice to the BG teams in Bolivia, Chile, Uruguay, and Brazil, the company said.

Barbosa was until June 2010 the CFO at Vale SA, the Brazilian mining company. Prior to that, he spent seven years in the Brazilian Ministry of Finance, rising to the role of National Treasury Secretary.

BG Group Chairman Andrew Gould commented in a statement:

"I would like to express on behalf of BG Group's Board our sincere thanks to Fabio for all his excellent work as CFO over the last two years. His efforts in the execution of the portfolio rationalization program and in diversifying and broadening our funding options and sources have been instrumental in materially strengthening our balance sheet position, helping underpin investment in, and the delivery of, our key global growth opportunities.

"As Chairman of BG South America, Fabio's wealth of experience will prove important in realizing the huge value inherent in our substantial interests in the region."

BG Group added that BG Group Financial Controller Den Jones will step up to serve as BG Group Interim CFO pending the conclusion of a success process for the role of CFO.

Generated by readers, the comments included herein do not reflect the views and opinions of Rigzone. All comments are subject to editorial review. Off-topic, inappropriate or insulting comments will be removed.

View the original article here