Fifty-Three Percent of Oil, Gas Workers Would Quit over Training

More than half of the oil and gas industry's employees would consider leaving an employer due to a lack of training and development, according to a BP-sponsored study of 773 professionals who work in the sector across 24 countries.

Findings from the survey – which was conducted by the Society of Petroleum Engineers – found that 53 percent of respondents said a lack of training and development opportunities would lead them to consider leaving an employer. Seventy-five percent of respondents said that training and development was important in their choice of role, while 37 percent felt that a lack of training in previous roles has held them back in their career.

The survey also found that a quarter of respondents believe the current lack of training and development is detrimental to their career. Fifty-six percent of respondents believe that the employer should provide all or some training to new joiners, although only 11 percent expect their employer to provide all of their training.

The research also found that oil and gas professionals believe that future generations of oil and gas workers require more development during their university years. While universities equipped students either "quite well" or "very well" with industry knowledge and technical and computer skills, they came up short in developing soft-skills that are critical for a successful career in the oil and gas industry. Less than one-third of respondents believed that universities helped students properly develop soft skills such as initiative, flexibility and work ethic.

In November, Rigzone reported that BP had launched a new $7.2-million scholarship program for talented science, technology, engineering and mathematics students as part of the firm's plans to foster an interest in the oil and gas industry among undergraduates. The company also runs "Discovery Days" and internships for promising students.

BP Head of Learning and Development Don Shoultz commented in a statement Tuesday:

"These findings further underscore the challenge the industry faces; we've got an ever growing skills deficit. The industry's more experienced talent needs continually to transfer the knowledge and skills they have built up through mentoring programs. Separately, oil and gas companies, of all sizes, need to ensure they are consistently increasing their investment in formal training and development programs."

A former engineer, Jon is an award-winning editor who has covered the technology, engineering and energy sectors since the mid-1990s. Email Jon at jmainwaring@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

Fifty-Three Percent of Oil, Gas Workers Would Quit over Training

More than half of the oil and gas industry's employees would consider leaving an employer due to a lack of training and development, according to a BP-sponsored study of 773 professionals who work in the sector across 24 countries.

Findings from the survey – which was conducted by the Society of Petroleum Engineers – found that 53 percent of respondents said a lack of training and development opportunities would lead them to consider leaving an employer. Seventy-five percent of respondents said that training and development was important in their choice of role, while 37 percent felt that a lack of training in previous roles has held them back in their career.

The survey also found that a quarter of respondents believe the current lack of training and development is detrimental to their career. Fifty-six percent of respondents believe that the employer should provide all or some training to new joiners, although only 11 percent expect their employer to provide all of their training.

The research also found that oil and gas professionals believe that future generations of oil and gas workers require more development during their university years. While universities equipped students either "quite well" or "very well" with industry knowledge and technical and computer skills, they came up short in developing soft-skills that are critical for a successful career in the oil and gas industry. Less than one-third of respondents believed that universities helped students properly develop soft skills such as initiative, flexibility and work ethic.

In November, Rigzone reported that BP had launched a new $7.2-million scholarship program for talented science, technology, engineering and mathematics students as part of the firm's plans to foster an interest in the oil and gas industry among undergraduates. The company also runs "Discovery Days" and internships for promising students.

BP Head of Learning and Development Don Shoultz commented in a statement Tuesday:

"These findings further underscore the challenge the industry faces; we've got an ever growing skills deficit. The industry's more experienced talent needs continually to transfer the knowledge and skills they have built up through mentoring programs. Separately, oil and gas companies, of all sizes, need to ensure they are consistently increasing their investment in formal training and development programs."

A former engineer, Jon is an award-winning editor who has covered the technology, engineering and energy sectors since the mid-1990s. Email Jon at jmainwaring@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

Fifty-Three Percent of Oil, Gas Workers Would Quit over Training

More than half of the oil and gas industry's employees would consider leaving an employer due to a lack of training and development, according to a BP-sponsored study of 773 professionals who work in the sector across 24 countries.

Findings from the survey – which was conducted by the Society of Petroleum Engineers – found that 53 percent of respondents said a lack of training and development opportunities would lead them to consider leaving an employer. Seventy-five percent of respondents said that training and development was important in their choice of role, while 37 percent felt that a lack of training in previous roles has held them back in their career.

The survey also found that a quarter of respondents believe the current lack of training and development is detrimental to their career. Fifty-six percent of respondents believe that the employer should provide all or some training to new joiners, although only 11 percent expect their employer to provide all of their training.

The research also found that oil and gas professionals believe that future generations of oil and gas workers require more development during their university years. While universities equipped students either "quite well" or "very well" with industry knowledge and technical and computer skills, they came up short in developing soft-skills that are critical for a successful career in the oil and gas industry. Less than one-third of respondents believed that universities helped students properly develop soft skills such as initiative, flexibility and work ethic.

In November, Rigzone reported that BP had launched a new $7.2-million scholarship program for talented science, technology, engineering and mathematics students as part of the firm's plans to foster an interest in the oil and gas industry among undergraduates. The company also runs "Discovery Days" and internships for promising students.

BP Head of Learning and Development Don Shoultz commented in a statement Tuesday:

"These findings further underscore the challenge the industry faces; we've got an ever growing skills deficit. The industry's more experienced talent needs continually to transfer the knowledge and skills they have built up through mentoring programs. Separately, oil and gas companies, of all sizes, need to ensure they are consistently increasing their investment in formal training and development programs."

A former engineer, Jon is an award-winning editor who has covered the technology, engineering and energy sectors since the mid-1990s. Email Jon at jmainwaring@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

How Republicans Would Benefit From John Kerry Secretary of State Nomination

GOP Lawmaker’s Solution to Preventing Mass Shootings: More Guns

The Future of Gun Control in the Aftermath of Sandy Hook

Why Is Washington Obsessing About the Deficit and Not Jobs and Wages?
By Robert Reich The Future of Gun Control in the Aftermath of Sandy Hook
By Bill Blum Dear God! When Will It Stop?
By Marian Wright Edelman Questions I Ask Myself About the Connecticut School Shooting
By Juan Cole
Red States Surrender Health Care Oversight to Federal Government Insurance Industry Is Taking Climate Change Seriously Weaker Social Networks a Cause of Black Unemployment, Study Finds Dream of a Global Climate Deal Is Over, Experts Say U.N. Conference Produces No Internet Treaty
Watch: ‘SNL’ Honors Connecticut School Shooting Victims GOP Lawmaker’s Solution to Preventing Mass Shootings: More Guns ‘Left, Right & Center:’ School Shooting, Susan Rice Withdraws, and More Mike Huckabee Blames Connecticut Shooting on Separation of Church and State
Hollywood’s Raid on Convention
By Richard Schickel Understanding Economics in Plain English
By Thomas Hedges, Center for Study of Responsive Law Regulate Dissent in Hong Kong, Jackie Chan Says
Fighting Manifest Destiny
By Jonathan Yardley
The Questions Education Reformers Aren’t Asking
Dig led by Mike Rose

Gore Vidal: His Life and Legacy
Dig led by Truthdig Staff

advertisement

-->
Gringos in ParadiseBy Barry Golson
$17.16

advertisement

-->
The World That Made New OrleansBy Ned Sublette
$16.47

advertisement

-->
Ash Grey T-Shirt$19

  Email    Print    Share

Tweet Posted on Dec 16, 2012 Wikimedia Commons/United States Congress

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry.

It seems Republicans will get their man after all. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., is reportedly now President Obama’s top choice to succeed Hillary Clinton as secretary of state after Susan Rice withdrew her name from consideration for the top diplomat position late last week. The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations faced tough opposition from Republicans for her response to the deadly assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in September.

So why does the GOP want a Secretary of State John Kerry? Simple. In order to take a Cabinet post in the Obama administration, Kerry must vacate his long-held Senate seat, something that potentially paves the way for Scott Brown to be elected again to represent Massachusetts in the Senate. Brown lost his re-election bid to Democrat Elizabeth Warren last month. Republicans would love to add another member to the Senate, where they are the minority party.

The Note:

Sen. Scott Brown is widely expected to seek out his old job and he would be viewed as a strong contender, particularly in a special election to fill Kerry’s vacancy. Republicans have a tendency to perform better in special elections, which draw many fewer voters.

But it would be at least six months – assuming that Kerry is confirmed as Secretary of State, which he is expected to be- and assuming that Brown wins a special election – before he could re-join the Senate.

Massachusetts law dictates that a special election cannot take place sooner than 145 days from the time an out-going Congress member’s resignation is effective, meaning that at least 145 days must pass between the date that member actually leaves their job and the date that the special occurs. At this juncture in time,  even if Kerry is nominated tomorrow and has an incredibly quick confirmation at the beginning of the next Congress, the earliest conceivable date to reach this mark is in June, 2013.

Read more

—Posted by Tracy Bloom.

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

TAGS: barack obama elizabeth warren hillary clinton john kerry massachusettes massachusetts senate race obama administration politics republicans scott brown secretary of state state department susan rice



Related Entries Why Is Washington Obsessing About the Deficit and Not Jobs and Wages? ‘Left, Right & Center:’ School Shooting, Susan Rice Withdraws, and More Understanding Economics in Plain English Economist Baker Echoes Paul Krugman: There Is No Fiscal Cliff

Email to a friend

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: Red States Surrender Health Care Oversight to Federal Government

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.Get Truthdig in your inbox

Newsletter

Become a Fan

Follow Us

Subscribe

     
       #donation_div {display:none;}.popup {background:#FFF; border:1px solid #333; padding:1px;}.popup-header {height:65px; padding: 30px 40px 10px 50px;}.popup-header h2 {margin:0; padding:0; font-size:18px; float:left;}.popup-header .close-link {float:right; font-size:11px;}.popup-body {padding: 20px 70px 20px 50px;}a {color: #990000;}Close

Give the gift of independent journalism.

Support Truthdig by making a donation of at least $25 in someone's name, and we'll send him or her a signed letter of appreciation from our publisher.

With your support, we've been able to pay writers such as Chris Hedges, Col. Ann Wright, Mr. Fish and Nomi Prins.

We've sent reporters around the world, from Afghanistan to Cairo to Cuba.

Thanks to you, our mission to find and publish a range of insightful opinion and analysis from a progressive point of view continues.

Support Truthdig

HOME|Digs|Reports|Arts & Culture|Uncovered|Ear to the Ground|A/V Booth|Cartoons
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+ Google+
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
© 2012 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved. Web site development by Hop Studios 

View the Original article

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

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