SIESMIC CREW SURVEY

Geophysics ◽  
1976 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 554-554
Keyword(s):  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Marine Vessels ◽  
The U.S

SEG’s Siesmic Crew Survey for March 1976 shows a total of 240 land crews and marine vessels engaged in exploration for oil and gas in the U.S. and U.S. waters, including Alaska.

SEISMIC CREW SURVEY

Geophysics ◽  
1976 ◽  
Vol 41 (5) ◽  
pp. 1058-1058
Keyword(s):  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Seismic Exploration ◽  
Oil Companies ◽  
Marine Vessels ◽  
Operating Company ◽  
The U.S

SEG’s Seismic Crew Survey for July 1976 shows an increase of 12 land crews and marine vessels engaged in exploration for oil and gas in the U.S. and U.S. waters, including Alaska. The information shown in Table 1 is compiled from data reported by oil companies operating company‐owned seismic exploration crews and vessels by contract seismic exploration companies.

SEISMIC CREW SURVEY

Geophysics ◽  
1975 ◽  
Vol 40 (6) ◽  
pp. 1090-1090
Keyword(s):  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Seismic Exploration ◽  
Oil Companies ◽  
Marine Vessels ◽  
Operating Company ◽  
The U.S

SEG’s Seismic Crew Survey for September 1975 shows a total of 274 land crews and marine vessels engaged in exploration for oil and gas in the U.S. and U.S. waters, including Alaska. The information shown in Table 1 is compiled from data reported by oil companies operating company‐owned seismic exploration crews and vessels and by contract seismic exploration companies.

American and Canadian Civil Actions Alleging Human Rights Violations Abroad by Oil and Gas Companies

2008 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 653 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Horlick ◽  
Joe Cyr ◽  
Scott Reynolds ◽  
Andrew Behrman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
The United States ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
The Government ◽  
Oil And Gas Companies ◽  
Political Question ◽  
The U.S

Under the United States Alien Tort Statute, which permits non-U.S. citizens to bring lawsuits in U.S. courts for human rights violations that are violations of the law of nations, plaintiffs have filed claims against multinational oil and gas corporations for the direct or complicit commission of such violations carried out by the government of the country in which the corporation operated. In addition to exercising jurisdiction over U.S. corporations, U.S. courts have exercised jurisdiction in cases involving non-U.S. defendants for alleged wrongful conduct against non-U.S. plaintiffs committed outside the U.S.The exercise of jurisdiction by U.S. courts over non-U.S. defendants for alleged wrongful conduct against non-U.S. plaintiffs committed outside of the U.S. raises serious questions as to the jurisdictional foundation on which the power of U.S. courts to adjudicate them rests. Defences that foreign defendants can raise against the exercise of jurisdiction by the U.S. courts are an objection to the extraterritorial assertion of jurisdiction, the act of state doctrine, the political question doctrine, forum non conveniens, and the principle of comity. These defences are bolstered by the support of the defendant’s home government and other governments.

Significant Differences in Proved Reserves Estimates Using SPE/WPC Definitions Compared to United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Definitions

2005 ◽  
Vol 8 (06) ◽  
pp. 520-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.R. Harrell ◽  
Thomas L. Gardner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
The United States ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Classification Systems ◽  
Direct Function ◽  
Oil Companies ◽  
Publicly Owned ◽  
Hydrocarbon Reserves ◽  
The U.S

Summary A casual reading of the SPE/WPC (World Petroleum Congresses) Petroleum Reserves Definitions (1997) and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission(SEC) definitions (1978) would suggest very little, if any, difference in the quantities of proved hydrocarbon reserves estimated under those two classification systems. The differences in many circumstances for both volumetric and performance-based estimates may be small. In 1999, the SEC began to increase its review process, seeking greater understanding and compliance with its oil and gas reserves reporting requirements. The agency's definitions had been promulgated in 1978 in connection with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 and at a time when most publicly owned oil and gas companies and their reserves were located in the United States. Oil and gas prices were relatively stable, and virtually all natural gas was marketed through long-term contracts at fixed or determinable prices. Development drilling was subject to well-spacing regulations as established through field rules set by state agencies. Reservoir-evaluation technology has advanced far beyond that used in 1978;production-sharing contracts were uncommon then, and probabilistic reserves assessment was not widely recognized or appreciated in the U.S. These changes in industry practice plus many other considerations have created problems in adapting the 1978 vintage definitions to the technical and commercial realities of the 21st century. This paper presents several real-world examples of how the SEC engineering staff has updated its approach to reserves assessment as well as numerous remaining unresolved areas of concern. These remaining issues are important, can lead to significant differences in reported quantities and values, and may result in questions about the "full disclosure" obligations to the SEC. Introduction For virtually all oil and gas producers, their company assets are the hydrocarbon reserves that they own through various forms of mineral interests, licensing agreements, or other contracts and that produce revenues from production and sale. Reserves are almost always reported as static quantities as of a specific date and classified into one or more categories to describe the uncertainty and production status associated with each category. The economic value of these reserves is a direct function of how the quantities are to be produced and sold over the physical or contract lives of the properties. Reserves owned by private and publicly owned companies are always assumed to be those quantities of oil and gas that can be produced and sold at a profit under assumed future prices and costs. Reserves under the control of state-owned or national oil companies may reflect quantities that exceed those deemed profitable under the commercial terms typically imposed on private or publicly owned companies.

scholarly journals Assessment of undiscovered continuous oil and gas resources in the Upper Cretaceous Tuscaloosa marine shale of the U.S. Gulf Coast, 2018

Fact Sheet ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul C. Hackley ◽  
Catherine B. Enomoto ◽  
Brett J. Valentine ◽  
William A. Rouse ◽  
Celeste D. Lohr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Upper Cretaceous ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Gulf Coast ◽  
Marine Shale ◽  
Oil And Gas Resources ◽  
The U.S

Composite Sleeve Repair in the North American Regulatory Environment

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xavier Ortiz ◽  
Dan Jungwirth ◽  
Yashar Behnamian ◽  
Hossein Jiryaei Sharahi
Keyword(s):  
Maximum Stress ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Hazardous Materials ◽  
Regulatory Environment ◽  
Department Of Transportation ◽  
Regulatory Requirements ◽  
The North ◽  
Industry Standards ◽  
American Society ◽  
The U.S

Abstract Composite sleeve repairs have been used in the pipeline industry for the last 25+ years. Fiberglass sleeves (e.g., Clock Spring®) were initially introduced in the market and are still being used as a proven pipeline repair method. For the last 15+ years, new composite materials have been introduced in the industry to provide a wider variety of repair options depending on the type of imperfections being repaired. Regulations in the U.S.A. and Canada share some requirements regarding design, installation, testing, and assessment of composite sleeve repairs. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) through the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) recommends the use of repair methods consistent with industry standards. The 2019 version of the Canadian CSA Z662 Oil and Gas Pipeline Standard includes requirements for testing and qualification according to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) regulation PCC-2 or ISO/TS 24817, and requirements for conducting an engineering assessment to determine the subsequent maximum stress on the pipe sleeve. This paper compares the regulatory requirements for pipeline composite sleeve repairs in the U.S.A. and Canada; it describes some of the options for composite sleeve repair, and reviews engineering assessments of methodologies for composite sleeve repair.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document