SEISMIC CREW SURVEY

Geophysics ◽  
1977 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 671-671
Keyword(s):  
Oil Companies ◽  
Marine Vessels ◽  
Increased Activity ◽  
The U.S

Following two months of slightly increased activity, SEG’s January survey of oil companies and domestic contractors shows exploration in the U.S. and U.S. waters decreased during the month (Figure 1). Comparative figures of U.S. land crews and marine vessels are given in Table 1. Seismic crew data from outside the U.S. (shown in Table 2) were reported by the oil companies and contractors who provided the U.S. data.

SEISMIC CREW SURVEY—SEPTEMBER

Geophysics ◽  
1976 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 1402-1402
Keyword(s):  
Additional Data ◽  
International Association ◽  
Oil Companies ◽  
Marine Vessels ◽  
First Time ◽  
Increased Activity ◽  
The U.S

After four straight months of increased activity, SEG’s September survey of oil companies and domestic contractors shows exploration in the U.S. and U.S. waters declined during the month (Figure 1). Comparative figures for U.S. land crews and marine vessels are given in Table 1. Preliminary seismic crew data from outside the U.S. were reported for the first time in September. The information in Table 2 was reported by the oil companies and contractors who provided the U.S. data. Additional data from other companies being surveyed will be announced as soon as it is available. SEG’s U.S. Seismic Crew Count is taken monthly for the Federal Energy Administration and is financed by a grant from the International Association of Geophysical Contractors.

SEISMIC CREW SURVEY—MARCH

Geophysics ◽  
1977 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 897-897
Keyword(s):  
Oil Companies ◽  
Percent Increase ◽  
Marine Vessels ◽  
Increased Activity ◽  
The U.S

Following a month of slightly increased activity, SEG’s March 1977 survey of oil companies and domestic contractors shows exploration in the U.S. and U.S. waters declined during the month. Slight decreases in crew activity were also noted during March in both 1976 and 1975 (Figure 1). The current total (282) represents a 17 percent increase from the figure reported for March 1976 (240). It is still 16 percent below the March 1975 total (299). Five contractors were operating 8 of the 226 land crews on a speculative basis. Comparative figures of U.S. land crews and marine vessels are given in Table 1. Seismic crew data for Canada are shown in Table 2.

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 — NOVEMBER

Geophysics ◽  
1977 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 126-126
Keyword(s):  
Additional Data ◽  
International Association ◽  
Oil Companies ◽  
Marine Vessels ◽  
The U.S

After two months of slightly decreased activity, SEG’s November survey of oil companies and domestic contractors shows exploration in the U.S. and U.S. waters increased during the month (Figure 1). Comparative figures of U.S. land crews and marine vessels are given in Table 1. Seismic crew data from outside the U.S. (shown in Table 2) were reported by the oil companies and contractors who provided the U.S. data. Additional data from other companies will be announced as soon as they are available. SEG’s U.S. Seismic Crew Count is taken monthly for the Federal Energy Administration and is financed by a grant from the International Association of Geophysical Contractors.

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.

SEISMIC CREW SURVEY — MAY

Geophysics ◽  
1977 ◽  
Vol 42 (5) ◽  
pp. 1087-1087
Keyword(s):  
Oil Companies ◽  
Marine Vessels ◽  
First Time ◽  
The U.S

SEG’s May 1977 survey of oil companies and domestic contractors shows a total of 301 seismic land crews and marine vessels operating in the U.S. and U.S. waters. This is the first time since February 1975 that the figure has risen above the 300 mark (Figure 1). This total is 22 percent above May 1976, 5 percent above May 1975, but still 4 percent below May 1974. Comparative figures of U.S. land crews and marine vessels are given in Table 1. Seismic crew data for May 1977 in Canada are shown in Table 2.

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 The Total S.A. Case: Meaning of “Investment” under the ILSA

1998 ◽  
Vol 92 (3) ◽  
pp. 539-548 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rex J. Zedalis
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Clinton Administration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Oil Field ◽  
Executive Order ◽  
Oil Companies ◽  
Petroleum Resources ◽  
Petroleum Development ◽  
Oil Company ◽  
The U.S

On March 7, 1995, Conoco oil company of Houston, Texas, announced that it had entered into a contract with Iran to have a Netherlands-based affiliate assist in the development of the Sirri Island oil field. In response, the Clinton administration issued Executive Order No. 12,957, prohibiting participation by U.S. entities in the development of Iranian petroleum resources. Eventually, Conoco withdrew from its contract, but in early May of 1995 the administration stepped up its pressure on Iran by issuing Executive Order No. 12,959, prohibiting U.S. entities from using foreign entities they owned or controlled to make investments in or conduct trade transactions with Iran. On July 13 of that year, the French oil company Total S.A. entered into an agreement with Iran to replace Conoco in developing the Sirri Island field, and over the next several months Iran struck nearly a dozen petroleum development agreements worth in excess of $50 million each with other foreign oil companies. Within a couple of months, both Houses of the U.S. Congress took up consideration of proposals to complicate Iran’s ability to develop its hydrocarbon resources. By the end of 1995, the proposals, which even extended to wholly foreign entities organized and operating outside the United States, had come to include Libya as well. Final passage of one of the proposals, specifically, H.R. 3107, took place in the Senate and the House in July 1996. It was signed into law as the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) on August 5.

Statistical Analyses of Solo and Joint Bids for Federal Offshore Oil and Gas Leases

1978 ◽  
Vol 18 (02) ◽  
pp. 87-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elmer L. Dougherty ◽  
John Lohrenz
Keyword(s):  
Oil And Gas ◽  
British Petroleum ◽  
Outer Continental Shelf ◽  
Oil Companies ◽  
The Government ◽  
Offshore Oil And Gas ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Offshore Oil ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The U.S

Abstract This study of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) bid data, plus a critical analysis of other such studies, was made to determine the impact of joint bidding on competitiveness of OCS lease sales, It concludes that no class of joint bids has been shown to reduce the level of competition. Banning joint bidding by two or more major oil companies did result in an abrupt increase in the number of pint bids that included one major. Introduction Sealed, competitive bids for U.S. offshore oil and gas leases are classed as either solo or joint bids. Solo bids are submitted by one bidder with 100-percent ownership. Joint bids are submitted by several bidders who divide ownership among themselves. The pragmatic question that triggered this study was, "Is there a kind of solo or joint bid whose occurrence tends to decrease the number of sealed, competitive bids?" Such a bid would lower the level of competition. This study reports the results of a statistical analysis to measure the impact of joint bidding on the level of competition in sales of U.S. oil and gas leases. The study first presumed that the level of competition increases as the number of competing bids increases. This presumption while not unassailable, also was not unreasonable. Three previous studies of solo and joint bidding were reviewed first, revealing that conclusions drawn by two of the studies are statistically unsupported. Our study of the pragmatic question found no consistent correlation supporting a positive answer to the question. The U.S. policy regulation proscribing joint bids involving two or more majors tended to broaden the proportion and number of bids involving majors. REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES OF FEDERAL OFFSHORE SOLO AND JOINT BIDS Joint bidding for U.S. offshore oil and gas leases has been seated in previous studies of which three will be reviewed in detail. GASKINS AND VANN Gaskins and Vann computed values of the ratio of the sum of the highest bids to the sum of the U.S. presale estimates, Fmax/est, for leases that presale estimates, Fmax/est, for leases that received the same number(s) of bids. Precise definition of Fmax/est is given in the Nomenclature. Gaskins and Vann observed that values of F increased with n, from which they concluded the "government gets a larger percentage of its estimated value when there are more bidders." For the March 28, 1974, sale, Gaskins and Vann calculated Fmax/est for four different categories of highest bids:all bids,bids in which only nonmajors were involved,bids in which one or more majors were involved, andbids in which Mobil Oil Corp. was a participant. (No list was given of which bidders are classed as major.) Values of Fmax/est when majors and/or Mobil were involved in the highest bid were more often lower than for the other categories of highest bids. From this, Gaskins and Vann concluded that the "data support the hypothesis that major oil companies, and Mobil in particular, were able to attain lower winning bids..." We recalculated values of F,../est for the March 28, 1974, sale. These are shown in Table 12 along with comparable values of Fm../mean and Fmean/est. The agreement between values of Fmax/est presented by Gaskins and Vann and in Table 1 is excellent in most cases. Some of the differences, however, may be explained by differing definitions of majors. We considered these eight companies as major: Amoco International Oil Co., British Petroleum Ltd., Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Exxon Corp., Gulf Oil Corp., Mobil Oil Corp., Shell Oil Co., Texaco Inc. Other differences may be caused by disagreements in source data and/or computations.

scholarly journals Occurrence, distribution and composition of marine mammals in the bight of Bony, Nigeria

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 263-272
Author(s):  
Gideon Wole Olakunle ◽  
Ajuonu Ndubisi
Keyword(s):  
Marine Mammals ◽  
Bottlenose Dolphins ◽  
Atlantic Coast ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Depth Range ◽  
Common Dolphin ◽  
Coastal Habitat ◽  
Oil Companies ◽  
Delphinus Delphis ◽  
Marine Vessels

Information on the distribution, occurrence and population structure of cetaceans (whales and dolphins) of the Atlantic coast of Nigeria in West Africa remains fairly sparse to date, with few detailed studies being conducted on this valuable marine resource. This paper highlights the abundant cetacean community sighted in the Nigerian coastal waters and the respective importance of this area as a prime coastal habitat for these mammals. The secondary objective was the evaluation of this resource and development of appropriatemanagement policies. Opportunistic data was collected on board six different marine vessels belonging to some international oil  companies (IOC) in Nigeria, whose primary objective was to conduct seismic operations. 8,327 hours and 36 minutes of effort was logged during 2 wet and 3 dry seasons respectively, covering almost 880 km2 at a depth range of 10 to 70 m. The total number of individuals recorded was 2199 of which 80% were dolphins and 20% were whales. Out of these, 55.14% was sighted at depth range of 21 – 30 m. This was followed by 30.42% recorded at depth range of 31 - 40 m. The least frequency of 0.75 % was recorded at depth range of 61- 70m. Five hundred and twenty-five (525) individual whales was recorded, out of which 77.14% were adults and 22.86% were  juveniles, while 1674 individual dolphins were recorded with 52.63% juveniles and 47.37% adult. Four species of dolphins were  identified. The bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus was the most abundant owing to the large size of the groups observed, followed by common dolphin, Delphinus delphis. All species of dolphins identified occurred throughout the sampling months. Two species of whales were identified with the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) predominant and killer whales (Orcinus orca) which seem to be present in just a part of a year. Nigerian coastal water is moderately rich in cetacean diversity, which is currently underreported due to limited research.Keywords: Whales, dolphins, species diversity, opportunistic surveys, Nigeria.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document