Drilling

A new descriptive enters the lexicon of words used to describe the energy business. Who cares how we got to the modern age? All we know is that we don’t want to stay.

According to PowerShift ’09, a non-profit youth organization supporting drastic climate legislation, “Students and youth across the country will be following closely as the House Energy and Commerce Committee holds the first hearings on the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act this week.”

The press release quotes Jessy Tolkan, Executive Director of the Energy Action Coalition, as saying, “Young people understand the US response to climate change will determine our future.” If climate were an isolated entity, this would be true.

The fact is no amount of US legislation will affect the overall rate of carbon emissions. Growing economies, like those of China and India, will continue to use what many environmental groups are now referring to as “dirty” energy. While this primarily refers to coal, oil and natural gas (including CBM) are inferred. The juxtaposition of “clean” versus “dirty” is a semantic form of brainwashing. More importantly, do young people really understand what kind of effect an irrational response to climate change will have on our future?

The plethora of activists and environmental groups would have us believe that most oil and gas executives’ cheer every time a baby seal is clubbed or a village is plowed over by bright yellow dozers making way for the next crime scene where Mother Earth is raped against her will. This simply isn’t true, but you know this.

The recent political push to mandate the move away from fossil fuels is the irrational result of mass hysteria. Making believe that life as we know it will completely disappear within one or two decades if we don’t “alter our self-destructive course” is not a viable solution. What it breeds is misinformation and the progressive delusion that the world will be great if “they just do what we say.”

Renewable energy is a viable concept, but it can’t take place overnight. In the US, we have optimized our use of resources within the last 150 to garnish the highest levels of energy from the various elements we extract. Newer economies want a chance to do the same. To legislate limitations on what can be produced is to tether one of last bastions of heavy industry we have. While this appeases our sense of well being in the short-term, it will put us behind the technology leaders of tomorrow.

For a “greener” future to have optimum benefit, it will need to be conducted through a long process of transition. Renewable energy is not juxtaposed from that produced with fossil fuels. The oil companies of today will be the energy companies of tomorrow, adopting those technologies that become more profitable as markets change with time – not with legislation. Besides, doesn’t StatoilHydro own wind farms?

A new study published by the University Of Illinois College Of Law sheds light on the myths and the reality surrounding the recent proposal by many policy makers, activists, and politicians to “green the economy” and provide struggling countries – particularly the US – with “millions of green jobs.”

“Green Jobs Myths” is jointly written by Andrew P. Morriss, University of Illinois; William T. Bogart, York College of Pennsylvania; Andrew Dorchak, Case Western Reserve University; and Roger E. Meiners, University of Texas – Arlington. Its abstract points out that “a rapidly growing literature promises that a massive program of government mandates, subsidies, and forced technological interventions will reward the nation with an economy brimming with ‘green jobs.’ Not only will these jobs improve the environment, but they will be high-paying, interesting, and provide collective rights.”

The authors go on to say that this literature is constructed on mythologies about economics, forecasting, and technology.

The study focuses its analysis on the recent efforts to provide a full description of green jobs by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report, the U.S. Conference of Mayors (Mayors) report, the American Solar Energy Society (ASES) report and the Center for American Progress (CAP) report. “All these reports attempt comprehensive analyses, providing greater detail than the anecdotal claims elsewhere,” according to the new study.

The authors of Green Jobs Myths determine three key factors from the literature. First, the authors examine the problems with each report’s attempt to define when a job qualifies as “green” and to calculate how many supposed green jobs exist. Second, the study examines how the green jobs literature treats key economic concepts and finds that it makes fundamental economic errors in its analysis. Third, the study examines specific areas of technology where the authors believe the green jobs literature makes errors that typify it as a whole. The authors conclude by suggesting, “Deep skepticism is the most appropriate response to the hyperbolic claims of the green jobs literature.”

According to the authors, the most comprehensive piece of green jobs literature is the UNEP report. In its summary, the study shows the scope of the transformation that would be required of the American economy, the world economy, and society to implement green jobs proposals. The suggestions put forth by the UNEP report are fundamentally geared toward a complete restructuring of modern society and the world economy. Green jobs are described as a means of achieving its programmatic goals. However, unlike most green jobs reports, UNEP states that existing jobs will be destroyed as disfavored methods of production are forced to cease and replaced by new, preferred methods of production.

While many of the domestic reports viewed in this study propose that green jobs programs are a “win-win,” the UNEP report does not pretend that this policy implementation is a simple matter nor does it sugarcoat the massive structural changes that would be needed. In addition, the UNEP report does not pretend to know exactly how many jobs will be created decades from now, or that the costs can be known. The authors point out in their analysis that the UNEP report makes clear the broad scope of the social change it proposes, which is a change to virtually every aspect of daily life: from where people live, where their food comes from, how they commute to work, and even to what they do at work. If implemented, all of these would be dramatically altered from their current existence.

Overall, the authors observe that the green jobs literature focuses on phasing out virtually all of the country’s current energy sources, roughly 93%. Currently, only about 7% of our energy comes from what are called “renewable” sources. Green jobs promoters assert that 93% of our energy should be eliminated – energy used for heating and cooling homes, schools, and offices; powering cars and transport vehicles; and providing power for industry and agriculture, creating every good most people enjoy.

Former Vice President Al Gore has stated that our current sources of electricity (40% of all energy in the US) should be eliminated within a decade. However, the authors point out the 10% of electricity in the US comes from renewable sources. With wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass representing about 3% of the nation’s electricity generation capacity, even with rising capacity these technologies will continue to represent a mere fraction within 10 years.

Some of the myths surrounding green jobs proposals defined by the authors of the new study include the notion that everyone understands what a “green job” is. The reality: no standard definition of “green job” exists. Advocates report that creating green jobs will boost productive employment; however, the reality is that many green job estimates include huge numbers of clerical, bureaucratic, and administrative positions that do not produce goods and services for consumption.

The authors report that many proponents of green jobs feel that current forecasts are reliable. According to this study, much of the green jobs literature has based estimates on poor economic models using dubious assumptions. In addition, it is believed that green jobs promote employment growth. The fact is that by promoting more jobs instead of more productivity, the green jobs described in the literature will be low-paying and in less than desirable working conditions. The United Nations and Congress cannot simply mandate economic growth. The study also says that government interference such as restricting successful technologies in favor of speculative technologies favored by special interests will inevitably generate stagnation.

Perhaps the most astounding myth put forth by the green jobs mentality is that government mandates are a substitute for free markets. The truth is that companies react more swiftly and efficiently to the demands of their customers and markets than to cumbersome government mandates.

The “Green Jobs Myths” paper concludes that literature supporting green jobs claims is rife with internal contradictions, vague terminology, dubious science, and ignorance of basic economic principles. “Indeed, the green jobs literature claims resemble the promises of long-term financial prosperity offered by Ponzi schemes. New taxes, increased public borrowing , and government subsidies will be needed to support green jobs programs. We find no evidence that these ‘investments’ in green jobs can support the promised results,” the authors add.

The real purpose of the green jobs initiative is not to create jobs, but to remake society. This analysis purports that sweeping changes advocated in these reports under the premise of “greening our economy” are intended to shift the American and world economies away from decentralized decision making. The authors state that its real intent is to move in favor of centralized planning. Instead of allowing individuals to voluntarily trade in free markets, green jobs advocates would instead discourage trade and give central planners and politicians the reigns to choose which technologies could move forward as well as determine the choices faced by consumers and workers. Cloaking these policy shifts within the topic of green jobs, advocates of drastic economic policy shifts hope to avoid heated debates over the massive and costly changes they want to impose.

In an interview, Andrew R. Morriss, lead author for “Green Jobs Myths,” stated the dangers of diametrically opposing so-called “green jobs” against what many proponents classify as “less desirable forms of production” – jobs in the oil and gas industry.

Morriss said, “I think it is wrong to position green jobs as opposed to a fossil-fuel based economy. Jobs in refining - making it more efficient - are just as green as jobs in solar power.” Morriss and his coauthors emphasize, “The US economy has been steadily getting greener through market forces for at least 100 years, as cost pressures drive firms to innovate to be more efficient to cut costs.

“The current debate is an obfuscation of the real issues – what most of the people demanding the government spend billions on green jobs are trying to get is a substantial shift in the nature of our economy. If you read the UN Environment Programme report, for example, you can see this pretty clearly – they want less trade, more expensive energy, less fossil fuel use, etc.”

The debate, contrary to what most green jobs proponents currently believe, is far from over. The shining medallion being put forth as the green-engineered future is a pipe dream to say the least. Fossil fuels provide the infrastructure, the income, and ingenuity for most economies to thrive. To supplant this massive, proven network with technologies that are promising – but hardly scalable – is a vision that is not based in reality.

“Green Job Myths” contains 97 pages and is replete with graphs and statistics on the subject of green jobs and energy production. This paper should be required reading for anyone with a stake in the energy industry.  To download a free full version of the above paper visit http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1358423#

So here it is, the 2009 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference in Amsterdam, Holland. On first appearances I would have to say that the crowd doesn’t look expansive. Not that I mind, elbow room is always nice. But, given travel expense its discretionary nature in the world’s current economic state, I assume that many of us who planned to attend perhaps were outvoted by the gatekeepers.

However, the show goes on. Conference Chairperson, Walter Simpson, said this morning that approximately 1,450 people were registered to attend the Amsterdam Conference, which also has 93 exhibitors on the show floor. Maybe it’s not as bad as it seems? I can only report what I see.

So far, the technical sessions have been the “bell of the ball.” Simpson also announced that this year’s submissions for papers were a new record for the conference. Although, attending a conference in Amsterdam is rather sexy. I wonder what the turnout would’ve been for “2009 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference Beaumont, Texas?” Not that there’s anything wrong with Beaumont, but location can take an event a long way.

Calgary, Alberta, Canada-based Xtreme Coil Drilling Corp. has expanded its operations in Mexico. The venture began as with the execution of a new drilling contract with a Weatherford International subsidiary.

The company is now preparing to deploy two additional Coil Over Top Drive (COTDTM) drilling rigs under a new long-term contract. between Weatherford de Mexico S.A. de C.V. and Xtreme Coil’s wholly owned subsidiary, Xtreme Coil Drilling Mexico, S.A. de C.V.

The two XTC 400 drilling rigs will operate in the Chicontepec oilfield near Poza Rica. The XTC 400 is Xtreme Coil’s largest rig capable of drilling 10,000 ft with 3 ½-in. coiled tubing. Set up as a “triple,” the rig is also capable of drilling to 14,000 ft with conventional jointed drill pipe. It is built with a 400,000 lb. AC drawworks, a large 200,000 lb. injector and an integral multi-well pad self skidding system. Both rigs recently completed operations in the United States’ Rocky Mountain region.
Xteme Coil initiated its first international project in mid-2008 with six newbuilt COTDTM drilling rigs. It now has a fully staffed Mexico office acting as an operational base near Poza Rica. Current success in the region includes a 95% rate of productive rig time.

In Q4 2008, Xtreme Coil reported approximately 950 operating days in total. By the year end, Xtreme Coil had nine rigs under long-term contract. Including the two rigs moving to Mexico, its drilling rigs under contract have now increased to 11 out of its current COTDTM rig fleet of 16. The company is pursuing a number of new opportunities in several international regions. Its operating information shows its rigs to viable equipment for responding to conventional and re-entry drilling projects both in North America and beyond.

The BPM Forum, which defines itself as an “organization that helps advance the understanding of business performance management techniques, technologies, and processes in global enterprises,” has just released an interesting report that examines the forces, factors, and roadblocks IT leaders in the digital media and entertainment industry face in driving sustainability, improving efficiencies, and managing costs. The report, “Think Eco-Logical - IT Sustainability Imperatives in Digital Media & Entertainment Business,” is based on input from more than 100 IT professionals as well as nearly a dozen executives.

Though the target of the study is IT companies, the contents are much more broadly applicable. The introduction of the report gives some indication of why that is so: “Corporate America is coming to grips with the need for social responsibility and sustainability like never before. Faced with a quadruple whammy of high energy costs, environmental pressures, downturn cost-cutting, and the need for growth, companies need help to navigate through the perfect storm.”

All companies are dealing with the “quadruple whammy,” and some have found innovative solutions.

In tough times, all companies have to make difficult decisions. In the case of companies in the oil and gas industry, most companies have opted to continue investing in R&D. And most have also decided to reduce spending in other areas. That reduction in spending has affected advertising budgets, and trade publications like E&P and its competitors have felt the impact of those cuts. The fact is that all of the magazines are thinner these days.

There is opportunity in adversity, though, and innovative thinkers are at work everywhere, including E&P. We think our readers deserve thorough coverage of industry news and technology, especially in a situation like the one we are in today. So we are moving beyond paper and are using the limitless Web to provide the information our readers want and need.

In a world that produces a paper product, in our case, E&P magazine, it is difficult to make the transition to the completely electronic world. We use electronic tools all the time to transfer files and lay out the magazine, but we still have a monthly publication, which means that the news we report is not “immediate.” In a Web world, however, we can make information available the moment our copy is ready to turn in. Daily news and monthly news are not the same thing. And we are learning to think differently about how we post information and what sorts of information our readers expect to see online.

The good thing about this change is that it opens the door to options that aren’t available to a paper product. We can post stories as soon as we’re done composing them. We can post articles on all sorts of subjects that we don’t have room to address in the monthly magazine. And we can post videos, webinars, and interviews that our readers otherwise would never see.

The E&P site is rich with unique data, technology stories, industry news, commentary, and videos that take the magazine to a different level. And our weekly newsletter, The Buzz, gives subscribers easy access to the new content that is posted each week.

If you haven’t taken a look at the new and original content on our site, you should. You might be surprised by what you find. Check out E&P online.

According to a recent report written by David Ivanovich for the Houston Chronicle, President-elect Barack Obama has quietly shelved his proposal to institute a new windfall profits tax on oil and gas companies.

An aide for the transition team acknowledged the policy shift Tuesday, Dec. 2, after a small-business group discovered the proposal had been dropped from the incoming administration’s Web site, Ivanovich said.

“President-elect Obama announced the policy during the campaign because oil prices were above $80 per barrel,” the aide said. “They are below that now and expected to stay below that,” Ivanovich reported.

I hate to say “I told you so…,” but it simply didn’t make sense at the time of the election that Obama would seal his fate as the new Commander in Chief by instituting taxes on one of the most active industries in the U.S.

The question now is: what windfall?

Crude has fallen more than $100/bbl in the last five months and, with the current global financial crisis, there doesn’t seem to be any pot of gold at end of the rainbow. From its July high of $145, light sweet crude settled at just above $42 today according to NYMEX. Oil and gas companies are continuing to push forward, but it is uncertain what transformation will take place over the course of 2009.

Part of the fuel for Obama’s fire on the windfall profits tax plan arose from the pressure applied from record high gas prices coinciding with the oil price. In Houston, the Chronicle cited the average price for gasoline is down to $1.66/gal from its July record of $3.96/gal.

Now, we’re paying less for gas, but at what cost? The Washington, D.C.-based American Petroleum Institute (API) argued that a similar tax plan in 1980 cost the industry $38 billion in revenue. The nation also lost 1.3 billion barrels of domestically produced oil. Companies stopped operating in the U.S. and moved overseas to avoid the tax.

Ivanovich quoted Thomas Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, “The president-elect’s decision to reverse course on imposing this Carter-era burden on those who explore for and produce American energy is a heartening development — both for consumers and an economy struggling to claw its way out of a recession.”

So it seems the inherent instability of the upstream oil and gas industry has stabilized current tax regimes. This is a good thing.

With exploration bans now lifted for many offshore areas in the U.S., companies are more likely than ever to drill domestically. Time will tell if Congress is willing to play along. Achieving energy independence is a difficult enough, but an increase in taxes on those companies working domestically combined with limited resource areas to explore would make energy independence unattainable under any circumstance.

The accounting and consulting firm, BDO Seidman, LLP, released its findings from a study in which the organization interviewed 100 chief financial officers (CFO) at U.S. oil and gas E&P companies.

The BDO Seidman Natural Resources 2009 Outlook Survey was conducted in October and November of 2008. Most respondents (63%) expect to maintain their current levels of field personnel with 29% stating they will increase levels and 8% plan to decrease field staff.

Potential growth drivers for 2009 were identified as increases in demand both internationally and domestically. Others cited new production technologies (17%), adoption of alternative energies (12%), and increased oil and gas exploration (10%) as primary modes of industry growth over the next twelve months.

The report also shows only a portion of CFOs view access to capital (19%) and uncertain political climates (16%) as major barriers to international growth. Only 5% cited international tax or environmental regulations as a significant deterrent. Other financial challenges include recruiting or retaining skilled employees of which 12% of CFOs interviewed claimed this to be a problem in the coming year.

However, a majority (57%) of CFOs interviewed said that credit capacity restraints and access to capital would be the greatest financial challenge in 2009. Nearly a quarter (21%) placed lower oil and natural gas prices as the second biggest challenge. Three-quarters of the respondents (72%) expect the economic crisis in the U.S. to impact their ability to borrow money or to extend bank debt in 2009. Of those interviewed, only 26% reported delayed or terminated E&P projects in the last 12 months with 80% of those stating “lack of capital funding” as the cause.

Charles Dewhurst, a partner of the firm stated, “Energy companies have remained relatively unscathed by the downturn this year and continued with record profits. However, a storm front is gathering for 2009.” The survey was conducted as oil prices and demand continued to drop – and this volatility, combined with the state of the economy – has energy companies treading more cautiously, added Dewhurst.

Any thoughts?

On May 29, 2006, the island of Java, the most populated island in the World, experienced a mud volcano that has since displaced an estimated 40,000 residents. It currently vents 5.2 MMcf of hot mud per day. The eruption has been named LUSI, a compendium of “lumpur” (the Indonesian word for mud) and Sidoarjo, the town near where the eruption occurred.
The causes of the eruption have not been unanimously decided although a vocal group of scientists have attributed the event to the drilling of Lapindo Brantas Inc.’s Banjar Panji-1 nearby.

The event has been labeled as one of the world’s most significant natural disasters in recent years. New facts presented at the Geological Society of London is casting doubts on the premise that drilling provided a trigger for the catastrophe.

History
According www.mudvolcano.org, a Web site devoted to the event, Lapindo Brantas began drilling the Banjar Panji-1 well to target gas reserves in the Kunjung formation, which is a deep sedimentary basin located 1.9 miles (3 km) below the surface. The site is in Sidoarjo, East Java, Indonesia.

At 5:54 a.m., on May 27, 2006, an earthquake occurred, which measured 6.3 on the Richter scale. The tremor was felt on the drilling rig and approximately seven minutes later the well experienced a “loss” of 20 bbl of mud. The drilling team controlled the situation to industry standards before continuing operations.

On May 29, 2006, a sudden eruption of hot mud and steam began near the well. The initial event was reported as an intermittent hot water eruption with a maximum height of 25 ft (7.6 m) with an elapsed five minute period between the bursts in a distinct geyser-like cycle of active and passive periods.

Due to time of occurrence and its close proximity – 656 ft (200 m) – from the drillsite, general public opinion speculated that the mud flows were triggered by an underground blowout of the Banjar Panji-1 well.

New evidence
Presented in London’s Geological Society on October 23, a paper titled, “East Java Mud Volcano (LUSI): Drilling Facts and Analysis” (Control ID 472920), Bambang P. Istadi, Nurrochmant Sawolo, et al, examines the drilling data from the Banjar Panji-1. According to its authors the objective of the paper is to, “clearly and transparently set out the drilling engineering data and analysis to correct the technical record and to provide a platform for further analysis.” The analysis focuses on key drilling pressure measurements and drilling facts to investigate the early speculation that drilling was the trigger of LUSI.

Based on their analysis of the drilling evidence, the annular pressure was too low to fracture the wellbore. There was no sustained pressure to propagate fractures. Most importantly, the wellbore was open and totally dead while mud erupted at a rate of more than 300,000 b/d only 656 ft (200 m) from the well. The paper questions data and facts relied on for other papers citing drilling as the cause.

The paper also points the mud volcanoes are numerous in the area, namely the Porong collapse northeast of LUSI among others. The authors claim that LUSI is a special case that allows observation of the ongoing geological processes from the volcano’s controversial beginning. The paper also points other viable hypotheses including mud volcanism due to remobilization of over pressured shale through a reactivated fault as the conduit and geothermal activities where superheated hydrothermal fluids at high temperature and pressure are through fault zones or fracture networks as the conduit.

An open letter
Bambang Istadi and Nurrochmat ‘Rocky’ Sawolo have published an open letter describing their current effort to dispel the “drilling caused” scenario for LUSI. The letter emphasizes the earlier earthquake, which killed more than 6,000 people and rendered an estimated 1.5 million homeless after striking Yogakarta, Java, approximately 161 miles (260 km) from LUSI only two days before the mud volcano erupted.

The letter asserts that new facts make it clear that drilling could not have triggered LUSI. “We do not know where they got their original data, we only know that their findings are incorrect,” Istadi and Sawolo said in response to the vocal minority of scientists that continue to stand by the view that drilling caused the event.

In an effort to sustain their hypotheses, the authors took out an advert in the New Scientist to ask that facts and the official data should drive findings of the causes of LUSI. They also openly invited interested parties to scrutinize their data adding, “To find the real trigger of LUSI we need good science, not unsubstantiated hypotheses.”

They closed their letter with the hope that LUSI could serve as a watershed moment for the science and geology communities stating, “Either we base our conclusions on the facts and complete official data or we don’t.”

A full description of LUSI and the various research attempts it has inspired can be found at www.mudvolcano.org. For the full version of Istadi’s and Sowalo’s paper visit click here.

As a rule, children are not political animals. When they do have political slants they are typically derived from verbal and nonverbal queues displayed by the adults around them – namely parents.

It was 1980, and I had just started the second grade. We were returning to school the day after Ronald Reagan had secured a landslide defeat of the incumbent Jimmy Carter. As a seven year old boy, I officially didn’t have a dog in that fight although, according to my father’s reaction to the election results the evening before, it was obvious that I shouldn’t be celebrating.

My father is a life long union democrat who espoused on many occasions that anyone claiming to be a “republican” while wearing a hardhat and carrying a lunch pail to work was undoubtedly a moron, point taken. Today, I understand the difference between facts and opinions, but as a young boy I assumed my parents were right about everything.

The next day at school we filed into the classroom just after the first bell. One of my classmates was a bit overzealous at Reagan’s success the night before. He was jumping up and down and attempted to high five me on the way to his seat. I wasn’t sure if my dad could beat up his dad, but I saw first hand that his dad’s president had given a good beating to ours.

I wasn’t much for debating in those days. Besides, how many talking points does a seven year old know? I used the only form of rebuttal I knew (thanks to three older brothers), and I punched him in the eye. He fired back with equal force and it was only minutes before Mrs. Fisher had us both by the ear marching us down the hall to the principal’s office.

If memory serves me correctly, one of us showed up with a shiner the next day. I’d like to say it was “the other guy” but quite honestly there have been too many scuffles in the last thirty years to recount the damage associated with each. Fortunately for me, that was the first and last time I ever came to blows over politics.

The point of this story is not to examine the validity of any specific political party. This week will present us with a new President – Barack Obama or John McCain. Regardless of how you vote, opportunities for change exist in either platform.

I’ll admit that the Reagan years were tough on my family. “Trickle down economics” was more aptly described as “trickle from.” Nevertheless, we survived and things improved over time. The lesson I’ve learned is that the US is best characterized as a diverse and robust endeavor.

Where the oil and gas industry is concerned, 2008 has been a very good year. Although things are now cooling due to a looming financial crisis and warnings of a coming recession, the industry will subside. July brought record high prices for crude. It was a time when every official in Washington could be found – soapbox in hand – proclaiming the need to “do something about these high prices!”

As Mark Twain said, “be careful what you wish for…you just might get it.” Today, the price of oil is less than half of its July peak. Gas prices in Houston are down to $2.20/gallon. Politicians have lost their grip on the debate; finger pointing is no longer a valid response to the nation’s major oil companies. This is a positive development. In spite of public perception, those of us who work in this industry understand the importance of independent oil companies. They are fighting a good fight when compared to the amount of available resource areas. More than three-fourths of the world’s hydrocarbons are controlled by national oil companies.

Offshore drilling is now gaining ground in parts of the US that have been closed off for nearly two decades. As a point of interest for political intervention, it should be noted that the first President Bush instituted the original ban on these areas – a Republican.

While it’s easy to assume that most candidates will toe the party line once in office, where energy is concerned we should keep an open mind. The basis of this industry is cyclical. High prices are good, too high prices become a problem. The object is to find a balance that sustains a profitable margin for operating companies while providing consumers with a market that doesn’t appear to be spiraling out of control.

The numbers show that $4/gallon kills demand for transportation fuel. Some of this demand will be lost forever. Now we have to be concerned about low prices. How will they affect industry projects and related job markets? What will become of the move toward alternative sources of energy? Time will tell.

Our new president could be democrat or republican. There’s no reason to assume that one is right and one is wrong for our industry. Energy is a big issue within our modern political discourse. Provided that a candidate is rational with some degree of common sense, the oil and gas industry will maintain its growth in the years to come. There should be no reason to come to blows over the election’s outcome.

To some men, sport is golf, to some fishing, yachting, horse racing or hunting.

To each his own; but, for the wildcatter, there is no thrill to compare with coring an oil sand.

The derrick stands tall and straight against the sky. The lights of the rig blink with the stars. The night air is cold and the wild goose calls at dawn. Mingled with the deep hoarse voice of the mud pump is the sharp rattle of rotary and chain; and the steady throb of the engine beating time for the turning, turning, turning.

The driller hunches over the brake, with weathered eyes on the indicator, as he feels the bit, a mile below, biting into the bowels of the earth.

And you stand there beside him, watching, listening, waiting for the screech of the draw works and sudden change in pitch and tempo all around – the sound of sand, oil sand, or water sand – who knows.

And then with the line of steel, down, down, you reach to pull from below, the sand of the sea buried fifty million years ago.

The core is up, the sand is there. One glance will give the clue. You smell, you taste. It’s oil! It’s oil! It’s true! It’s oil! It’s true!

Mark Edwin Andrews

April 19, 1952

(Reprinted from The Wildcatter’s Handbook)

Who said poetry never had a place in the oilfield?