IraQ & IraQ

Offshore Oil Rig Jobs – No Experience – How Do I Get Started

admin — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0000

The oil industry is booming right now, with many offshore oil rig jobs needed to crew the new drilling rigs. Top economists project the oil boom to last the next 14 to 20 years, which will likely lead to oil jobs outstripping financial and IT jobs. While many people are puzzled about how to get started, the truth is that if you are young, fit, hardworking and willing to get your hands dirty, you should have no trouble getting started.

If you do not have any experience, the best way to get started is to get a job on a land-based oil rig. You can get hired as a roustabout, basically a general laborer, work hard for 6 months and climb up the ladder to the position of roughneck. As a roughneck, you will still do a lot of manual labor, but you may also have a chance to supervise a few roustabouts and help out the more specialized positions like the derrickhands and drillers. Show the right attitude, work hard and you may find yourself promoted all the way up to driller (2nd highest rank on the oil rig) in 5 years.

A university degree is not very useful on board an oil rig. On the other hand, a useful technical certificate or diploma, for example as an electrician or mechanic, could land you a job in the motor room or electrical department. These are not the only useful trade skills on board an offshore oil rig. The rig crew need to eat, so a good cook is always welcome on board. A medic also plays a valuable part on the rig. Despite modern technology, an oil rig job is still a pretty hazardous place to work in. Accidents happen, and a medic always has work to do.

An important point to keep in mind is that an offshore oil rig is covered under maritime law. Hence, it is good if you take the trouble to get a basic working knowledge of how it will affect you. Besides this, there are vaccinations and skills certifications specific to where the oil rig is located. For example, in the UK you need to take an offshore survival and firefighting course. Different Canadian provinces have their own First Aid certifications. And different US states have their own requirements.

As you can see, there is no secret to getting started in offshore oil rig jobs. Just start small, on shore, from the bottom. Once you prove yourself, you can move to the more lucrative offshore drilling rigs.

Maybe The Oscar Wyatt Case is Another Selective Prosecution?

admin — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0000

In a surprise move, Texas wildcatter Oscar S. Wyatt arrived at a plea deal with the Department of Justice and plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud on October 1.

The Houston gas and oil maverick magnate Oscar S. Wyatt was being tried for wire fraud and prohibited transactions. It is alleged that he paid kickbacks to the Iraqi government to obtain vouchers allowing him to purchase oil through the UN sanctioned “Oil for Food Program. Ben Berry, head of the FBI white-collar crime unit, said Wyatt was also guilty of “terrorist financing” because he violated a Bush order prohibiting these dealings with Iraq.

Wyatt, 83, explained his decision to accept a plea deal by saying that at his age he could “not …waste any more time fooling with this operation.” He will serve 18 to 24 months and pay a $11 million fine.

A few others have been indicted for paying kickbacks to Iraq, and there is no way of knowing if Wyatt is innocent or guilty. It seems that the US did not object to people buying oil under the Oil for Food program until 2002, when some went to Syria. It that year, Saddam started demanding kickbacks for vouchers in 2000. Some American firms refused to pay but others continued to do business with him. There is a 2004 CIA report on these operators that runs 918 pages, but the names of firms and individuals were redacted. It is estimated that Saddam may have garnered $10 in illegal profits and that Wyatt may have ponied up a little less than $4 million for $23 million in profits over 7 years.

Few Americans were indicted; although, various sources identified many persons and American firms being involved. Neo-Cons, anxious to discredit the UN, obtained a report by Paul Volcker that showed that many corporate interests were involved. Chevron, which had named a tanker for former employee Condi Rice, was named, along with Mobil Exxon. Marc Rich, whose pardon by Bill Clinton was denounced without end by conservatives, was also named but was not indicted.

What is interesting is the manner and intensity with which the Department of Justice went after Wyatt. The prosecution made Wyatt’s patriotism the issue. His lawyers are trying to exclude from the evidence the diary of an employee of Iraq’s State Oil Marketing Organization. It states that Wyatt bragged on January 27, 2003, while in Iraq, that he persuaded a US Senator to speak against the proposed invasion. Reuters claimed the senator was Edward Kennedy. The diary also stated that Wyatt warned of a US invasion and estimated the kinds of US forces the Iraqi were likely to face.

The government does not claim he told them anything that was classified. An intelligent reader would assume Wyatt wanted Saddam to back down so that oil would continue to flow. He was probably trying to prevent the war the Bushies were determined to launch.

The prosecution insists upon making him appear a traitor. His attorneys claim this information will prejudice the jury but they admit that Wyatt was no fan of George W. Bush. They add that he flew bombing missions in World War II. Reactionary columnist helped along the government’s case, writing that Wyatt is “lucky he isn’t charged with treason.”

Apparently Wyatt’s communications were being monitored since 2001. His former business partner David Chalmers, was also inducted. Chalmers has been described as a big Republican donor, but the fact is that he gave more to Democrats. Since 1989, he and his wife have given more than $500,000 to Democrats. Wyatt has angered the Bushes because he questioned the senior Bush’s claims to have risen in the oil industry from humble origins. In 1990, he and John Connally incurred the wrath of the Bushes again when they negotiated the release of 22 oil workers being held by Saddam Hussein as “human hostages.” Mrs. Bush signaled him out in her autobiography for placing “gain above honor.” He has frequently been a thorn in the side of the big Texas energy interests, most recently leading a stockholders revolt against El Paso Corp., which had acquired his Coastal Corp.

It has been said that the touch and free-wheeling Wyatt is not even afraid of the devil. He will need every ounce of courage to face up to two years in a federal prison at his advanced age.

Some may draw the conclusion that it is not prudent to make large donations to the Democratic Party. There is a growing body of evidence that the Justice Department could be engaging in selective prosecutions for political purposes. In Mississippi, Paul Minor was sent to prison for donating to the campaign of a state supreme court justice even though Mississippi law seems to open the door to contributions by lawyers and companies. In Wisconsin, Georgia Thompson went to jail for awarding a contract to the lowest bidder. Fortunately, an appeals court reversed her conviction. In Alabama, former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman was sent to prison for appointing a contributor to a state board. In this case, there is compelling evidence that that charges were brought for political purposes.

War Contractors Face Liability in Iraq and Afghanistan

admin — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0000

In modern conflict areas, corporate policy and economic concerns can complicate security protocols and military missions. Incidents of negligence, abuse, fraud, personal injury liability and wrongful death can occur, even in a war zone. It is not unpatriotic to seek redress against corporations that have put their profits and convenience above their responsibility to our fighting men and women, their civilian contract employees or foreign citizens.

Members of our military face great risk, but it is not their duty to face hazardous exposure to improperly managed dump sites or burn pits, electrified plumbing, or unreasonably unsafe construction sites. Civilian contractors in war zones hire on to hazardous jobs and working conditions, but that does not allow their employers to completely disregard their safety.

No one, not one of our brave men and women, military or contract employee, not any of the citizens of Iraq or Afghanistan should have to face gross negligence or fraud by U.S. war contractors.

Operating under U.S. contract in Afghanistan and Iraq, corporations can still be liable under U.S. law for cases of wrongful death, gross negligence, fraud, and abuse. Just because they operate in dangerous areas does not excuse a company from wrongful acts.

As with so many other corporations, if profits and expediency are prioritized over human health and safety, people can get hurt or killed. Often in those cases, the only remedy available is a lawsuit.

Lawsuits are by no means a panacea and are the venue of last resort. Nevertheless, sometimes lawsuits function as the best regulators. A lawsuit will not heal an injury or bring back a lost loved one, but the exercise of justice and the repayment for damage done can help victims and their families survive and put their lives back together as best as they can.

In a war zone, soldiers are prepared and trained to fight an enemy. Combat obviously entails inherent risk. The policy of the armed forces is to train individuals to put them at risk for national security and to protect our interests. However, if flaws or shortcuts in an improperly constructed or maintained facility lead to injury or death, the corporation responsible may be liable.

When a driver working for a defense contractor is sent unarmed and untrained into a known, active battlefield, this goes beyond any reasonable risk they may have signed up for on taking the job. If as part of a corporate policy, employees are sent into hazardous situations with not only no warning but also the implied promise of safety, this is not collateral damage or an unavoidable casualty. This is gross negligence. This can be wrongful death. In our system, this act and this corporation may be only answerable to a lawsuit.

If a corporation exposes soldiers, employees and local citizens to hazardous, life-threatening chemicals in an open burn pit or dump area, regulators may not have power to do anything other than request a clean up or levy a fine. Victims often have to seek their own redress.

Similarly, if a soldier is electrocuted in a barracks shower because of improper wiring, or a contract employee suffers injury in a collapse of an inadequately constructed building, there may or may not be criminal wrongdoing, but the corporation behind the negligent building practice may also face civil liability. These are stories of incidents that have allegedly occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Whether we approve or not, corporations play a vital role in our modern military activity. Companies are profiting from our wars and military reconstruction efforts. Unfortunately, corporations are rarely adequate at policing themselves when it comes to protecting their employees.

As we grow more dependent on corporate contractors to participate in military actions, we need to safeguard the system under which their employees are protected as well as the rights of military men and women.

There is a justice system within the military built to deal with violations of military personnel. For U.S. corporations though, we rely on U.S. laws and regulations. There may be cause to involve the criminal courts, but corporate policies and behaviors that result in injury or death often end up in the civil justice system. There, actions rely on victims coming forward and filing suit on their own, with the help of their lawyers.

In our modern corporate run society, the civil justice system is very often the only effective regulator. When corporations enter the battlefields, the civil justice system must be prepared to follow.

In the criminal system, prison sentences and fines are the deterrents that make the laws effective. In the civil system, monetary penalties not only aim to help the victims but also hopefully deter future acts and protect others from becoming victims themselves.