Do you work in the oil industry?

GeoJAP

I was this close (holding up thumb and index finger pressed closely together) to working for Exxon or Halliburton. I graduated with an undergraduate Geology degree from the University of Texas in 2000 and I interviewed with both of them. I wound up getting employment very quickly as a programmer, however. It paid more and was a more secure position back in 2000. My job still pays more than an oil industry geologist with equivalent experience, I think.

I miss Geology. Computers are fun and enjoyable, but exploring and scientific field work is much more satisfying.

joeltrout · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Sep 19, 2007 Posts: 1317

rockdoc123 · Light Sweet Crude Joined: May 16, 2005 Posts: 1685

joeltrout · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Sep 19, 2007 Posts: 1317

ExtractionEngineer

OU...uuuggghhh
UT.....hmmmmmm

I'm an Ok State grad....May 2003. I also interviewed with both Exxon and Halliburton...and have worked for one of them for the past 5 years.

Looks the big 12 is well represented here.

Shannymara · Master Joined: Oct 04, 2004 Posts: 5433 Location: Oklahoma

OU 2001 here. I'm not in the oil industry (we were in the same building as geosciences at the time, though), but I had to represent.
_________________
"Every junkie's like a setting sun..." - Neil Young

GeoJAP

joeltrout · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Sep 19, 2007 Posts: 1317

GeoJAP

I had suspected that these figures of $150K were more indicative of geologists with masters degrees and experience, which these salary surveys seem to support. Still, salaries have greatly appreciated. When I left school, geologists with MS degrees were getting $50-65K to start.

http://www.aapg.org/explorer/salarysurvey.cfm

rockdoc123 · Light Sweet Crude Joined: May 16, 2005 Posts: 1685

sscbarber · Coal Joined: May 25, 2008 Posts: 4

I have 25 years in drilling business. Degree in Mech Eng from cal poly. 20 years with Sedco/Schlumberger and 5 years as a consultant. I live in Calif.

seahorse · Expert Joined: Oct 15, 2004 Posts: 2196 Location: Arkansas

Hi SSC

What is your take on the peak oil issue?

What are your thoughts on natural gas supply here in the states?

sscbarber · Coal Joined: May 25, 2008 Posts: 4

Peak oil -
It is for real and it is today. Every company worldwide (except Venezuela) is wide open pumping/drilling/developing everything they can. Saudi is injecting 10 million bbls/day of raw (unfiltered) seawater to maintain its 8.5 million oil output. Majority of their wells are heavy water cut and they have largest water seperators in world. This is a field in decline. In 90's they would shut in a well that cut 5% water. They would love that well today.
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/02/skys_eye_over_t.html

Natural gas - The US has Canadian gas, Gulf of Mexico gas and hopefully we will get that new super large LNG plant in northern Mexico.
March 2006 article
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3417
n a recent poll, Americans ranked “energy dependence” as their second greatest concern, after the Iraq war. That is hardly surprising. It is now a well-publicized fact that the United States imports 65 percent of the oil it consumes—much of it from unsavory, hostile countries. But the situation is even tougher than most people think. The United States is not only dependent on foreign oil, it is also increasingly dependent on foreign sources of natural gas—a fuel that provides 20 percent of America’s electricity and heats more than half of U.S. homes (including 70 percent of all new homes).

Natural gas is popular because it is the world’s cleanest-burning fossil fuel. It produces fewer emissions and pollutants than either coal or oil. Since the early 1970s, worldwide reserves of natural gas have increased steadily, at an annual rate of around 5 percent. The number of countries with known reserves has increased from around 40 in 1960 to more than 85 today.

There is virtually no overlap in the United States today between the uses for oil, almost all of which goes to transportation, and uses for natural gas, most of which goes to heating and electricity production. With oil supplies dwindling and production capacity strained, there will be an attempt by the world’s leading economies to use more natural gas for transportation, both directly, as some cities have done with their public transit systems, or indirectly by, for instance, electrifying cars. This will cause the demand for natural gas to skyrocket, creating what may be America’s largest future energy shock.

Why? The United States has historically relied on domestic sources of natural gas. Imports constitute a very small percentage of U.S. gas consumption: Thirteen percent comes from Canadian pipelines, and an additional 4 percent is imported as liquid natural gas (LNG) from other nations such as Qatar. That would hardly be concerning, were bad news not en route. Domestic gas production is in decline. Companies have scrambled to drill more fields to stem the decline, with little luck. During the past four years, the number of rigs drilling for gas has more than doubled, from around 600 in March 2002 to more than 1,300 today. Yet, natural gas production has remained flat or falling and it cannot even be attributed to the recent hurricanes. The country no longer has the geological and physical requirements to increase production. The increase in drilling activity, fuelled by increases in natural gas prices, is not slowing the inevitable decline of domestic production.

Importing natural gas from foreign countries—cooled into LNG—will soon be America’s only option for meeting demand. That is increasingly the case in other countries such as Japan, South Korea, and much of Europe, all of which have no significant domestic reserves and, like the United States, are eager to import.

This situation puts LNG exporters, like oil exporters, in an incredibly powerful position. Countries such as Algeria and Qatar—also-rans in the oil business—are poised to become natural gas powers in the 21st century [see chart]. They are certain to organize a natural gas cartel, similar to OPEC. That scenario worrisome for several reasons. Some of these countries, such as Russia, have already used natural gas as a political weapon.

Others, notably Iran (which has only scratched the surface of its gas potential), already appear headed for confrontation with the United States and Europe. Iran helped form the Gas Exporting Countries’ Forum (GECF)—a group of 15 gas-producing countries that met for the first time in Tehran in May 2001. Collectively, the GECF controls 73 percent of the world’s natural gas reserves and 41 percent of production. Somehow, the GECF has escaped the world’s attention. As the gas market grows increasingly global, that kind of indifference will become a luxury of the past.

seahorse · Expert Joined: Oct 15, 2004 Posts: 2196 Location: Arkansas

SSC,

Thanks for the insightful post. There has been a big debate on this website about some of the US unconventional NG finds like the Barton Shale, Fayetteville Shale etc. What effect do you see these unconventional finds having on US production? In your post, you said the US would be forced to increasingly rely on LNG. So, I took your post to imply that the unconventional gas fields would not stem the US decline. But, I don't want to infer incorrectly. I would appreciate how you see the unconventional gas fields affecting US production.

sscbarber · Coal Joined: May 25, 2008 Posts: 4

Unconventional oil and gas.
First, everything is economics and second, the environmental damage.
Shale oil is possible at 95$/bbl cost (2005 dollars)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/09/04/MNGIEKV0D41.DTL
Shell has a big project of in citu heating and production with frozen barriars around the heated area.
An optimist could argue that we have 800 billion bbls in shale oil - 40 years supply. But it is still unproven in large volumes.
http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=us-en&FC2=&FC3=/us-en/html/iwgen/shell_for_businesses/exploration_production_shared/mahogany_shared/dir_mahogany.html
according to the following article, US Gov owns most of the shale reserves. http://www.dailyreckoning.com/rpt/OilShale.html

Canadian Tar Sands - Again - economics and environment - Tar sands are an environmental nightmare - this article is great explanation: http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=30703

The conclusion is:
"Our unwritten energy policy is dig it up and sell it as fast as possible."]

But far beyond the near term, it is unlikely that the tar sand phenomenon will permanently fix what has become increasingly obvious to anyone who cares to have their eyes open about the world's energy situation.

The price of oil is unlikely to fall significantly anytime soon, due to higher extraction and security costs, limited refinery capacity, and the writing on the wall, the easy oil has been found and the hard to find stuff is now on its way to being used up. "

At 250$ a barrel - (assuming 250$ is 250$) , I think we could support ourselves for 30 years (USA) with shale oil, tar oil, ultra deep water gas/oil and open up All our coastline and Alaska to drilling.

Personally, I am more worried about peak oil as one of the hydra heads of a monster attacking USA (people)now.