OCS Study 

MMS 2004-041 

 

Economic Impact in the U.S. 

of Deepwater Projects: 

A Survey of Five Projects 

U.S. Department of the Interior

Minerals Management Service 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 
U.S. Department of the Interior

Minerals Management Service 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 

OCS Study 

MMS 2004-041 

Economic Impact in the U.S. 

of Deepwater Projects: 

A Survey of Five Projects 

Authors 

John J. Stiff 

Joachim Singelmann 

Prepared under MMS Contract 

1435-01-99-CT-31019 

by 

ABS Group, Inc. 

16855 Northchase Drive 

Houston, Texas 77060 

Published by 

New Orleans

May 2004 
iii 

DISCLAIMER 

This report was prepared under contract between the Minerals Management Service (MMS) and 

ABS Group, Inc. This report has been reviewed by the MMS and approved for publication. 

Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the 

Service, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or 

recommendation for use. It is, however, exempt from review and compliance with MMS 

editorial standards. 

REPORT AVAILABILITY 

Extra copies of the report may be obtained from the Public Information Office (Mail Stop 5034) 

at the following address: 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

 Minerals Management Service 

 Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 

 Attention: Public Information Office (MS 5034) 

 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard 

 New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394 

 Telephone Number: (504) 736-2519 or 

 1-800-200-GULF 

CITATION 

Suggested citation: 

Stiff, J. and J. Singelmann. 2004. Economic impact in the U.S. of deepwater projects: A survey 

of five projects. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2004-041. 184 pp. 
v 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

FIGURES.....................................................................................................................................................ix

TABLES ......................................................................................................................................................xi

1. SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW............................................................................................................1

1.1. Project Overview ........................................................................................................................1

1.2. Report Structure ..........................................................................................................................3

1.3. Components of Deepwater Facility.............................................................................................4

1.3.1. Decks.........................................................................................................................4

1.3.2. Jackets .......................................................................................................................5

1.3.3. TLP and Spar Hulls...................................................................................................6

1.3.4. TLP Tendons.............................................................................................................7

1.3.5. Spar Moorings...........................................................................................................8

1.4. Project Overview – Discussion of Findings................................................................................8

1.5. Possible Way Forward for Future Studies ..................................................................................9

2. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION GATHERED ................................................................................11

2.1. Ursa Project...............................................................................................................................13

2.1.1. Shell Supplied Data on Ursa - Fabrication..............................................................13

2.1.2. Shell Supplied Data on Ursa - Operations ..............................................................16

2.2. Baldpate ....................................................................................................................................20

2.3. Pompano ...................................................................................................................................21

2.4. Neptune Spar.............................................................................................................................21

2.5. “Sir Douglas Morpeth” Development.......................................................................................23

2.5.1. Overview of Project ................................................................................................23

2.5.2. Information Gathered..............................................................................................25

2.5.3. Gulf Island Fabrication Inc. Data............................................................................29

2.5.4. Atlantia Supplied Information.................................................................................34

2.5.4.1. Atlantia......................................................................................................34

2.5.4.2. Alan C. McClure and Assoc. Inc. .............................................................34

2.5.4.3. Survival Systems Int. ................................................................................34

2.5.4.4. Solar Turbines ...........................................................................................34

2.5.4.5. Offshore Technology Research Center at Texas A&M ............................34

2.5.4.6. ABB Vetco................................................................................................35

2.5.4.7. Smithco .....................................................................................................35

2.5.4.8. American Bureau of Shipping...................................................................35

2.5.4.9. Global Maritime........................................................................................35

2.5.4.10. Wellstream ................................................................................................35

2.5.5. Morpeth Conclusions ..............................................................................................35

3. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................36

3.1. Amount of Labor and Its Occupational Composition of the Morpeth Project..........................36

3.2. Occupational Structure of the Houma Labor Market Area.......................................................41

3.2.1. OES Data for Houma MSA.....................................................................................42

3.2.2. STIO Data for Houma MSA ...................................................................................42

3.2.3. OES-LA Data for Louisiana RLMA 3 ....................................................................42

3.2.4. STIO for Louisiana RLMA 3..................................................................................42
vi 

4. CHRONOLOGY OF FIELD DEVELOPMENT..................................................................................43

4.2. Prelease Acquisition..................................................................................................................43

4.3. Partners and Operator................................................................................................................43

4.4. Bids to Minerals Management Service .....................................................................................44

4.5. More Detailed Seismic..............................................................................................................44

4.6. Exploratory Drilling..................................................................................................................44

4.7. Field Delineation.......................................................................................................................44

4.8. Well Testing..............................................................................................................................45

4.9. Decide to Develop.....................................................................................................................45

4.10. Factors Affecting Development Options ..................................................................................45

4.10.1. Water Depth ............................................................................................................46

4.10.2. Size of Field and Number of Wells.........................................................................46

4.10.3. Expected Production Rate.......................................................................................46

4.10.4. Type of Crude .........................................................................................................46

4.10.5. Quantity of Gas .......................................................................................................47

4.10.6. Financial Risk .........................................................................................................47

4.10.7. Politics.....................................................................................................................47

4.10.8. Local Infrastructure.................................................................................................47

4.10.9. Length of Field Life ................................................................................................47

4.10.10. Possible Re-Use of Platform as a Hub ....................................................................48

4.10.11. Need for Workover .................................................................................................48

4.10.12. Decommissioning Costs and Technology...............................................................48

4.11. Development Options ...............................................................................................................49

4.11.1. Conventional Jacket Based Structures ....................................................................49

4.11.1.1. Limitations ................................................................................................49

4.11.1.2. Advantages................................................................................................49

4.11.1.3. Disadvantages ...........................................................................................50

4.11.1.4. Fabrication ................................................................................................50

4.11.1.5. Load-out, Transportation, Installation, and Piling ....................................51

4.11.2. Compliant Tower ....................................................................................................54

4.11.2.1. Limitations ................................................................................................54

4.11.2.2. Advantages................................................................................................54

4.11.2.3. Disadvantages ...........................................................................................55

4.11.2.4. Fabrication ................................................................................................56

4.11.2.5. Load-out, Transportation, Installation, and Piling ....................................56

4.11.3. Tension-Leg Platform (TLP)...................................................................................56

4.11.3.1. Limitations ................................................................................................57

4.11.3.2. Advantages................................................................................................57

4.11.3.3. Disadvantages ...........................................................................................57

4.11.3.4. Fabrication ................................................................................................58

4.11.3.5. Load-out, Transportation, Installation, and Piling ....................................58

4.11.4. Mini-TLP ................................................................................................................59

4.11.4.1. Limitations ................................................................................................61

4.11.4.2. Advantages................................................................................................61

4.11.4.3. Disadvantages ...........................................................................................61

4.11.4.4. Fabrication ................................................................................................61

4.11.4.5. Load-out, Transportation, Installation, and Piling ....................................61

4.11.5. Spar .........................................................................................................................62

4.11.5.1. Limitations ................................................................................................63

4.11.5.2. Advantages................................................................................................64

4.11.5.3. Disadvantages ...........................................................................................64
vii 

4.11.5.4. Fabrication ................................................................................................64

4.11.5.5. Load-out, Transportation, Installation, and Piling ....................................64

4.11.6. Converted Semisubmersible....................................................................................64

4.11.6.1. Limitations ................................................................................................65

4.11.6.2. Advantages................................................................................................65

4.11.6.3. Disadvantages ...........................................................................................66

4.11.6.4. Fabrication ................................................................................................66

4.11.6.5. Transportation, Installation, and Anchoring/Piling...................................66

4.11.7. Deep-Draft Semisubmersible..................................................................................66

4.11.7.1. Limitations ................................................................................................66

4.11.7.2. Advantages................................................................................................67

4.11.7.3. Disadvantages ...........................................................................................67

4.11.7.4. Fabrication ................................................................................................67

4.11.7.5. Load-out, Transportation, Installation, and Piling ....................................67

4.11.8. Floating Production, Storage, and Offloading System (FPSO) ..............................67

4.11.8.1. Limitations ................................................................................................68

4.11.8.2. Advantages................................................................................................69

4.11.8.3. Disadvantages ...........................................................................................69

4.11.8.4. Fabrication ................................................................................................69

4.11.8.5. Load-out, Transportation, Installation, and Piling ....................................70

4.11.9. Subsea Tieback .......................................................................................................70

4.11.9.1. Limitations ................................................................................................70

4.11.9.2. Advantages................................................................................................70

4.11.9.3. Disadvantages ...........................................................................................70

4.11.9.4. Fabrication ................................................................................................70

4.11.9.5. Load-out, Transportation, Installation, and Piling ....................................70

4.12. Financing...................................................................................................................................71

4.12.1. Company Cash ........................................................................................................71

4.12.2. Stock Issues.............................................................................................................71

4.12.3. Bond Issues .............................................................................................................71

4.12.4. Bank Loans .............................................................................................................71

4.12.5. Sale-Leaseback........................................................................................................71

4.12.6. Hedging...................................................................................................................72

4.13. Preliminary Engineering ...........................................................................................................72

4.14. Model Testing ...........................................................................................................................72

4.15. Detail Engineering ....................................................................................................................73

4.16. Bidding Options........................................................................................................................73

4.16.1. Whole Project Turnkey ...........................................................................................73

4.16.2. Major Packages.......................................................................................................73

4.16.3. Cost Plus .................................................................................................................74

4.17. Contractors................................................................................................................................74

4.17.1. Schedule..................................................................................................................74

4.17.2. Project Management ...............................................................................................74

4.17.3. Labor Force.............................................................................................................74

4.17.4. Material Supply.......................................................................................................74

4.17.5. Transportation .........................................................................................................75

4.17.6. Safety Systems ........................................................................................................75

4.17.7. Weather ...................................................................................................................75
viii 

4.18. Quality Control .........................................................................................................................75

4.19. Transportation ...........................................................................................................................75

4.20. Assembly...................................................................................................................................76

4.21. Installation.................................................................................................................................76

4.21.1. Template..................................................................................................................76

4.21.2. Tendons...................................................................................................................76

4.21.3. Tendon Connectors .................................................................................................77

4.21.4. Jacket.......................................................................................................................77

4.21.5. Deck ........................................................................................................................77

4.21.6. Moorings .................................................................................................................77

4.21.7. Pipelines..................................................................................................................77

4.21.8. Risers.......................................................................................................................77

4.21.9. Subsea Wells...........................................................................................................77

4.22. Commissioning .........................................................................................................................78

4.22.1. Topsides ..................................................................................................................78

4.22.2. Pipelines..................................................................................................................78

4.22.3. Risers.......................................................................................................................78

4.23. Development Drilling ...............................................................................................................78

4.24. Operations.................................................................................................................................78

4.24.1. Production and Processing ......................................................................................78

4.24.2. Well Maintenance ...................................................................................................79

4.24.3. Maintenance and Inspection....................................................................................79

4.24.4. Supply Boats ...........................................................................................................79

4.24.5. Crew Changes .........................................................................................................79

5. SHALLOW WATER VS. DEEPWATER............................................................................................79

5.1. Manning ....................................................................................................................................80

5.2. Subsea .......................................................................................................................................80

5.3. Pipelines and Gas......................................................................................................................80

5.4. Infrastructure.............................................................................................................................81

5.5. Drilling......................................................................................................................................81

5.6. Platforms...................................................................................................................................81

5.7. Workover ..................................................................................................................................83

5.8. Blowouts ...................................................................................................................................84

5.9. Evacuation.................................................................................................................................84

References...................................................................................................................................................87

Appendix...................................................................................................................................................A-1
ix 

FIGURES 

Page 

Figure 1. Gulf of Mexico Seafloor Relief Map Showing Locations of Platforms in Study 

(Courtesy of Geoscience Earth & Marine Services, Inc. (GEMS)). .......................................2

Figure 2. Distribution Between Cost of Development Drilling and Structure. ......................................3

Figure 3. Deck Installed on a Jacket.......................................................................................................4

Figure 4. Pompano Platform on Location (Artist impression courtesy of J. Ray McDermott, Inc.)......5

Figure 5. Baldpate Compliant Tower (Courtesy of Amerada Hess). .....................................................5

Figure 6. Shell Ursa TLP (Courtesy of Shell Exploration and Production Co.). ...................................6

Figure 7. Sir Douglas Morpeth Mini-TLP (Courtesy of Atlantia Offshore Ltd.)...................................7

Figure 8. Neptune Spar Operating on Location (Courtesy of Kerr-McGee Oil and Gas Corp.)............7

Figure 9. Studless Chain (Courtesy of Vicinay International Chain Co.). .............................................8

Figure 10. Cost of Offshore Platforms Compared to Other Structures and Contracts. ..........................12

Figure 11. Approximate Distribution of Costs for Ursa TLP (100% is $950 million)...........................13

Figure 12. Discoverer Seven Seas (Courtesy of Transocean). ...............................................................14

Figure 13. Ursa Project Management: Distribution of 130 Interface Personnel Between Disciplines 

and Locations. .......................................................................................................................15

Figure 14. Number and Location of Vendors on Ursa Project by State (Courtesy of Shell 

Exploration and Production Co). ..........................................................................................16

Figure 15. Approximate Monthly Pay for Offshore Personnel (US$ per calendar month)....................17

Figure 16. C-Port Supply Boat Base in Fourchon, LA (Courtesy of Edison Chouest Offshore). ..........18

Figure 17. Drilling and Production Operating Costs of Ursa TLP.........................................................19

Figure 18. Ursa Production and Drilling Costs Per Day. .......................................................................19

Figure 19. Baldpate Compliant Tower: Topside Engineering, Procurement, Inspection, 

Project/Construction Management........................................................................................20

Figure 20. Neptune Spar After Mating and Under Tow to Location......................................................22

Figure 21. Sea Pony Shallow Water Platform (Courtesy of Seahorse Platform Partners Ltd.)..............24

Figure 22. Sir Douglas Morpeth Mini-TLP Installed (Courtesy of Atlantia Offshore Ltd.). .................24

Figure 23. Morpeth Field Layout Showing Subsea Wellheads and Pipeline to Shallow Water 

Facility (Courtesy of Atlantia Offshore Ltd.). ......................................................................25

Figure 24. Sir Douglas Morpeth Mini-TLP: Cost Breakdown...............................................................27

Figure 25. Breakdown of $99,200,000 Cost for Morpeth Platform with Sample Vendor Locations 

(Note: Costs do not include subsea and pipeline costs.). .....................................................28

Figure 26. Outside Expenditure by Gulf Island by State........................................................................30

Figure 27a. Vendors to Gulf Island Fabrication for the Hull and Deck Structure Fabrication of 

Morpeth Mini-TLP (Primary supplies are steel, paint, and anodes.) ....................................31

Figure 27b. Morpeth Mini-TLP Number of Primary Vendors by State...................................................32

Figure 27c. Morpeth Mini-TLP Income for Primary Vendors by State...................................................33

Figure 28. Man-hour Labor Distribution on Morpeth at Gulf Island Fabrication. .................................39
x 

Figure 29. Cumulative Hours on Hull and Deck Fabrication and Assembly at Gulf Island 

Fabrication on Morpeth.........................................................................................................40

Figure 30. Pompano Jacket at Harbor Island Yard during Side Roll-Up (Courtesy of J. Ray 

McDermott)...........................................................................................................................51

Figure 31. Shell Bullwinkle Jacket Just Prior to Launch (Courtesy of Shell Exploration and 

Production Co.). ....................................................................................................................52

Figure 32. Bullwinkle Jacket during Launch (Courtesy of Shell Exploration and Production Co.). .....53

Figure 33. Jacket Deck Arriving on a Barge. .........................................................................................53

Figure 34. Lifting a Deck onto Jacket with Two Cranes on One Derrick Barge....................................54

Figure 35. Ursa TLP after Installation of Deck at Curacao (Courtesy of Shell Exploration and 

Production Co.). ....................................................................................................................57

Figure 36. Deck Installation on Ursa (Courtesy of Shell Exploration and Production). ........................58

Figure 37. Ursa TLP Dry Towed from Italy (Courtesy of Shell Exploration and Production). .............59

Figure 38. Wet Tow of Ursa from Curacao to Site (Courtesy of Shell Exploration and 

Production Co.). ....................................................................................................................59

Figure 39. El Paso Prince TLP (Courtesy of MODEC Int. LLC). .........................................................60

Figure 40. Anadarko Operated Marco Polo TLP Owned by El Paso & Caldive (Courtesy of 

MODEC Int. LLC)................................................................................................................60

Figure 41. Morpeth Hull Transportation to Site (Courtesy of Atlantia Offshore Ltd.). .........................62

Figure 42. Lifting Deck of Morpeth into Place (Courtesy of Atlantia Offshore Ltd.). ..........................62

Figure 43. Neptune Spar (Courtesy of Kerr-McGee Oil and Gas Corp.)...............................................63

Figure 44. Three Spar Configurations as Used by Kerr-McGee (Courtesy of Kerr-McGee Oil and 

Gas Corp.). ............................................................................................................................63

Figure 45. Converted Semisubmersible Laffit Pincay............................................................................65

Figure 46. Pemex Ta’Kuntah FSO (Courtesy of MODEC Int. LLC). ...................................................68

Figure 47. Pemex Ta’Kuntah FSO Simultaneous Offloading (Courtesy of MODEC Int. LLC). ..........69

Figure 48. Model of a Mini-TLP being Model Tested in a Wave Basin (Courtesy of Atlantia 

Offshore Ltd.). ......................................................................................................................73

Figure 49. Shallow Water Gulf of Mexico Jacket under Tow in Bayous...............................................76

Figure 50. Supply Vessel Amy Chouest at Dock. ..................................................................................79

Figure 51. SeaHarvester Minimal Platform (Courtesy of Sea Horse Platform Partners Ltd.). ..............82

Figure 52. Platform Complex in Cantarell Field, Mexico......................................................................82

Figure A-1. Data for the 1998-2008 Employment Projections Cover the State of Louisiana and the 

Eight Regional Labor Market Areas (RLMA’s). ................................................................A-3

Figure A-2. Houma Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Includes Lafourche and Terrebonne 

Parishes Compared to Regional Labor Market Area 3 (RLMA 3), which also Includes 

Assumption Parish. .............................................................................................................A-4
xi 

TABLES 

Page 

Table 1 Projects Studied ......................................................................................................................1

Table 2 Areas of Major Fabrication or Assembly................................................................................1

Table 3 Overall Costs of Baldpate (extracted from OTC paper 10914) ............................................20

Table 4 High-Level Cost Breakdown for Neptune Spar ....................................................................22

Table 5 Breakdown of Principal Costs for Morpeth (from OTC paper 10854) .................................26

Table 6 Percent Hours and Percent of Wages for Morpeth Project ...................................................37

Table 7 Summary of Hours and Percent of Wages for Morpeth by Discipline .................................38

Table 8 Number of Full-Time Equivalent Workers...........................................................................41

Table A-1 Regional Labor Market Area and Houma Metropolitan Statistical Area—1999 Wage 

Comparison .........................................................................................................................A-5

Table A-2 Houma Metropolitan Statistical Area—1998, Occupational Employment Statistics 

(OES) Survey (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, website: 

http://stats.bls.gov/oeshome.htm)......................................................................................A-16

Table A-3 Houma Metropolitan Area—Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes (Data are from 

the1990 Census special tabulation of occupation by industry. These counts are for all 

industries.).........................................................................................................................A-28

Table A-4 Houma Metropolitan Area—Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes (Data are from the 

1990 Census special tabulation of occupation by industry. These counts are for 

SIC=353, Construction and Related Machinery, and SIC=373, Ship and Boat Building 

and Repairing.)..................................................................................................................A-39

Table A-5 Regional Labor Market Area 3—Assumption, Lafourche, and Terrebonne Parishes 

Occupational Employment Statistics (Louisiana Department of Labor) .........................A-42

Table A-6 Louisiana Department of Labor Region 3—Lafourche, Terrebonne, and Assumption 

Parishes (Data are from the 1990 Census Special Tabulation of Occupation by Industry. 

These counts are for all industries.) ..................................................................................A-70

Table A-7 Louisiana Department of Labor Region 3—Lafourche, Terrebonne and Assumption 

Parishes (Data are from the 1990 Census Special Tabulation of Occupation by Industry. 

These counts are for SIC=353, Construction and Related Machinery, and SIC=373, 

Ship and Boat Building and Repairing.) ...........................................................................A-78
1 

1. SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW 

1.1. PROJECT OVERVIEW

The aim of the project was to study five specific deepwater Gulf of Mexico developments and show 

how their fabrication, installation, and operation has had an economic impact around the United States 

and, to a lesser extent, the world. The five developments studied cover a number of different methods for 

developing deepwater reserves in the Gulf of Mexico. The projects are summarized in the two tables 

below. Table 1 gives the type and general costs. These are not entirely consistent as discussed in the 

notes, but the major deviation concerns Pompano that does not include many additional costs associated 

with the project. Table 2 gives a very broad layout of where the major components were fabricated or 

assembled. Figure 1 shows the locations of the different projects on a map of the Gulf of Mexico. 

Table 1 

 

Projects Studied 

Project Name Operator Structure Type Water 

Depth 

Cost 

(see notes) 

Ursa Shell Tension Leg Platform (TLP) 3,800 feet $950 million1 

Sir Douglas 

Morpeth 

British Borneo (now Agip) Mini-TLP 1,690 feet $159 million2 

Neptune Oryx (now Kerr-McGee) Spar 1,930 feet $130 million3 

Baldpate Amerada Hess Compliant Tower 1,650 feet $215 million4 

Pompano BP Amoco (now BP) Conventional Jacket 1,294 feet $100 million5 

Notes on costs: 

1

 This cost includes the hull, tendons, deck, facilities, risers, pipelines, and installation. It is based on Shell 

published total project cost of $1.45 billion, of which 65% is for the facilities and 35%, or $500 million, is for 

the development drilling and completion. 

2

 Includes TLP, subsea, pipelines, and project costs, but does not include development drilling. 

3

 Includes hull, mooring, topsides, installation, risers, and project costs. Development drilling and 

completion were an additional $42 million. 

4

 Includes the tower, facilities, pipeline, and project costs. Development drilling and completion were an 

additional $117 million. 

5

 Includes the fabrication costs ONLY; does not include installation, pipelines, or any drilling costs. 

Table 2 

 

Areas of Major Fabrication or Assembly 

Project Type Deck Hull/Jacket Tendons/Mooring 

Ursa TLP Louisiana Italy Japan 

Sir Douglas Morpeth Mini-TLP Louisiana Louisiana Japan 

Neptune Spar Louisiana Finland Pennsylvania/Spain 

Baldpate Compliant Tower Texas Texas/Louisiana N/A 

Pompano Conventional Jacket Louisiana Texas N/A 

Figure 2 shows the approximate breakdown between the cost of the installed structure, and the cost to 

drill development production wells. There are many factors that affect the cost of development drilling, 

and while water depth is important, it is not necessarily the most important factor. As an example, Shell 

had serious problems drilling the development wells for Ursa, and had to abandon the first wells. The 

Morpeth wells were also far more expensive than expected. 
2

Figure 1. Gulf of Mexico Seafloor Relief Map Showing Locations of Platforms in Study (Courtesy of Geoscience Earth & Marine Se

Baldpate (Compliant Tower) Garden Banks 260 1650 feet W.D. 

PoVi12

Sir Douglas Morpeth (Mini-TLP)Ewing Bank 921 1690 feet W.D. 

NV1

Ursa (TLP) 

Mississippi Canyon 810 

4000 feet W.D. 

New 

Orleans

Houston 
3 

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

$900

$1,000

URSA TLP Morpeth MiniTLPNeptune Spar Baldpate

Compliant Tower

Cost of Structure vs Drilling ($Millions)

Drilling

Structure

Figure 2. Distribution Between Cost of Development Drilling and Structure. 

1.2. REPORT STRUCTURE

The purpose of this report is to present the information gathered during the course of the project, as 

requested by the Minerals Management Service (MMS) as part of the contract. The report is split into 

five major parts. These include: 

1. Summary and Overview: This section of the report briefly discusses the deepwater 

projects that were studied, an overview of each project, a brief discussion of the 

findings, and a possible way forward that could be taken by a new study to gather the 

information that was wanted. 

2. Summary of Information Gathered: This section presents the information that was 

possible to gather on the different deepwater projects concerning where the structures 

were fabricated, the major sub-contractors, and any other additional information 

discovered during the course of the study. 

3. Economic Analysis: The section presents the results of an analysis of information 

obtained from one fabrication yard. The analysis was performed by Dr. Joachim 

Singelmann of Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge. Only one suitable data 

set was given to the project team during the course of the study. Other data were 

found, but not in sufficient detail to warrant analysis. 

4. Chronology of Field Development: The section goes through the process of 

developing a deepwater prospect from pre-lease acquisition to abandonment. This 

had been requested by the MMS team at the start of the project. It is known that 

some of this information is available in other MMS published documents, but the 

intent was to present the information in a slightly different form. 

5. Shallow Water vs. Deepwater: The section discusses some of the major differences 

between developing a deepwater and shallow water field, as required by the contract. 

Ursa TLP 
4 

1.3. COMPONENTS OF DEEPWATER FACILITY

Some very general discussions can be made concerning the information contained in Table 2. The 

major components are discussed at a high level in the following subsections to help give an overview of 

how each deepwater facility was developed. 

1.3.1. Decks 

The deck of an offshore installation is the main part above water that supports all the living quarters, 

process equipment, power generation, etc. While there will normally be a significant amount of structure, 

the main cost will normally be in the installed equipment (Figure 3 shows a deck installed on a jacket. 

This is not a deep water structure, but shows the major components of accommodation and equipment. 

Some decks will have drilling capability, although this does not have a derrick.). The decks for all the 

structures were fabricated within the Gulf Coast region. Decks are generally fabricated at a location from 

which they can easily be loaded onto a barge for transportation to the installation site. The Gulf Coast 

region has extensive experience fabricating decks for offshore installations, and can do so efficiently. In 

addition, transportation costs and risk make overseas fabrication significantly less attractive. This is 

illustrated by the example of the Nemba deck that was being transported from the fabrication yard in the 

Far East to the installation site in West Africa. The ship capsized after hitting an unmarked obstruction in 

the Sunda Strait, Indonesia. Both the deck and ship were total losses, and the field development was 

seriously delayed at significant cost to Chevron, the operator. 

Figure 3. Deck Installed on a Jacket. 

The vast majority of the components used to assemble these decks are supplied by local vendors, 

including most of the process equipment. One of the major exceptions is solar turbines that supply the 

power generation equipment on many of the deepwater projects. They are based in California where the 

gas turbines are fabricated1

. There are other non-Gulf Coast vendors, but they tend to total a relatively 

small percentage of the overall deck fabrication cost. This is generally true for all decks, regardless of 

structure type, or even water depth. What is less clear is where the vendors get their supplies, and this is 

possibly an area for future study. 

 

1

 As discussed later, even this can be confusing since Shell has Solar based in Texas on their vendor list for Ursa, 

their contract being with the local office. 
5 

1.3.2. Jackets 

A jacket is the main support structure for most types of conventional shallow water offshore 

platforms, and some deepwater platforms, up to approximately 1,300 feet water depth. It is called a 

jacket because it encloses and supports the conductors that carry the piping through which the 

hydrocarbons are produced. Because they have to act as a support structure for the deck, taking the loads 

all the way to the seabed, as the water depth increases, the size of the jacket increases enormously. 

There are two structures on the list that are essentially jacket-based, Pompano (a conventional jacket 

structure; see Figure 4) and Baldpate (a compliant tower; see Figure 5). Both of these structures 

employed similar construction methods. As with decks, jackets need to be fabricated close to the sea so 

that they can be loaded onto a barge and towed to location. The Gulf Coast has many years experience 

fabricating jackets for the Gulf of Mexico and West Africa. The yards and labor force can efficiently 

fabricate jackets without incurring the additional risk and cost of trans-oceanic towing2

. 

Figure 4. Pompano Platform on Location (Artist impression 

courtesy of J. Ray McDermott, Inc.). 

Figure 5. Baldpate Compliant Tower (Courtesy 

of Amerada Hess). 

With years of experience, jacket construction is relatively straightforward and involves a large labor 

force to roll the steel, cut and prepare the tubulars, and weld them in place. The major costs besides the 

local labor force are the fabrication materials including steel members, sacrificial anodes (to protect the 

jacket from corrosion), and welding rods. 

 

2

 Most of the large California jackets installed in Santa Barbara Channel were built in Japan. One of those suffered 

significant damage during transportation. The others involved very expensive analysis and modification to ensure 

no damage. Other jackets not going to California have been total losses after falling off the barge in heavy seas. 
6 

1.3.3. TLP and Spar Hulls 

A tension leg platform (TLP) is a floating structure that is held to the seabed by vertical tendons that 

are kept in high tension by the buoyancy of the TLP hull (Figure 6 shows the Shell Ursa TLP, and Figure 

7 shows the Sir Douglas Morpeth mini-TLP on location). A spar is a large vertical cylinder (although 

variations now exist) that floats in the sea, and is moored to the seabed by relatively conventional 

mooring lines and anchors (Figure 8 shows the Neptune spar on location). The TLP and spar hulls can be 

likened to conventional steel plate construction common to many shipyards. However the unique 

cylindrical shape of a conventional spar necessitates setting up a series of special “jigs,” to aid in 

construction and assembly, which requires a relatively large capital expenditure. A yard so equipped has 

an automatic advantage over its competitors. When Spars International was established as a joint venture 

between McDermott and Aker, it was agreed that any spar contracts would have a hull built in Aker 

Rauma, Finland, and the deck built by McDermott. This put Aker Rauma in a strong competitive 

position. Future spars, especially those with modifications to the original spar concept3

, will be built on 

the Gulf Coast. Indeed, since the start of this project, Kerr McGee has contracted to have a cell spar built 

for the Red Hawk field development by CSO Aker in their yard near Corpus Christi. As with 

conventional jacket construction, such projects would primarily involve local Gulf Coast labor. 

Figure 6. Shell Ursa TLP (Courtesy of Shell Exploration 

and Production Co.). 

The Shell TLP hulls have been built at Belleli Offshore Oil and Gas in Italy. There is no reason that 

TLP hulls could not be built around the Gulf Coast, except that there are not many shipyards that can 

competitively undertake that sort of plate construction on a large scale, particularly given some of the 

Italian government incentives. However, the mini-TLP’s (Morpeth in this study, but also Allegheny, 

Prince, and others) installed in the Gulf of Mexico have been built on the Gulf Coast, though there have 

also been some contracted for construction in Korea. Typically the expense and risk of open ocean 

transportation makes the Korea fabricators less appealing, but the lower construction costs in Korea are 

challenging this view. At this time domestic shipyards are still at an advantage over their foreign 

competition for mini-TLP’s. It is also of note that these mini-TLP’s would probably not have been 

installed without the previous Gulf of Mexico experience with full-size TLP’s (e.g., Ursa, Mars, etc.). In 

effect, the foreign content spawned domestic work around the Gulf Coast. 

 

3

 There has been some research into the use of noncylindrical spars, including truss braced versions. There is a truss 

spar being fabricated at this time in Finland, although there is no reason that this could not have been economically 

fabricated on the Gulf Coast. The Finland connection is through Spars International, the contractor. There has also 

been discussion concerning the fabrication of rectangular spars. These would not need the expensive jigs, and could 

be easily fabricated on the Gulf Coast. 
7 

Figure 7. Sir Douglas Morpeth Mini-TLP (Courtesy 

of Atlantia Offshore Ltd.). 

Figure 8. Neptune Spar Operating on Location (Courtesy of KerrMcGee Oil and Gas Corp.). 

1.3.4. TLP Tendons 

Sumitomo Corporation, out of Japan, has supplied nearly all the tendons used on TLP’s. The pipe is 

shipped to Aker Gulf Marine yard in Texas where the tendons are assembled, and end connections fitted. 

It is not that other steel mills cannot supply the material, but Sumitomo have gained significant credibility 

over the years, which is extremely important, particularly if the oil company is trying to finance the 

venture. Banks prefer proven technology for their loans (see section on Financing). The top and bottom 

tendon connectors were supplied by ABB Vetco Gray (Houston, Texas) and the tendon connectors were 

supplied by Oil States Industries out of Aberdeen, United Kingdom. Like Sumitomo, both of these 

companies have a proven track record, which gives them the edge in their respective fields. 
8 

1.3.5. Spar Moorings 

The Neptune spar moorings are made up of both wire rope and chain. The chain was supplied by 

Vicinay in Spain. Figure 9 shows 6-inch diameter chain being manufactured and inspected for defects at 

the Vicinay fabrication facility in Spain. There are three main offshore chain manufacturers, and none is 

domestic (the other two are Scana Ramnas in Finland and Hamanaka in Japan). The cost of the chain was 

approximately $3.5 million, or just under 3 percent of the spar costs. The wire rope was supplied by 

Williamsport Wire Rope, out of Williamsport, Pennsylvania, for approximately $2 million, including the 

cost of sheathing it at Wellstream in Panama City, Florida. 

Figure 9. Studless Chain (Courtesy of Vicinay International 

Chain Co.). 

1.4. PROJECT OVERVIEW – DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

There is no doubt that much of what goes into the deepwater development in the Gulf of Mexico 

comes from all over the United States, but the present level of study has not uncovered this. The problem 

is that most of the fabrication is centered on the Gulf Coast, and most of the equipment vendors are local 

to the fabrication. It is not until one gets to at least the next level down that one is likely to uncover the 

diverse sources of the supply. 

As an example, Shell supplied a list of their Ursa vendors to the study team. This list contained 

approximately 1,000 company names coming from all over the U.S. Of those, probably less than 10 

percent represent individual expenditures of over 1 percent of the TLP cost (approximately $1 million). 

The other 90 percent of vendors represent small to very small expenditures (the lowest being under $10). 

While the list is not in error, it can be misleading. As an example it states that Sumitomo Corporation of 

America, in Illinois, supplied the pipe for the tendons. While this is no doubt where it was ordered, and 

to whom the money was paid, the actual pipe came from Japan, not Illinois. Another example has the 

turbines ordered from Solar Turbines Inc. in Texas. In fact the turbines would have been fabricated in 

California, although these were some of the few components that came from outside the Gulf Coast area. 

Under the original scope of work, ABS Consulting agreed to trace back to major vendors. This, 

however, has not shown the level of diversification sought from the study. It has shown that the majority 

of the work is centered on the Gulf Coast, with only a very limited number of major vendors situated 

outside that area. While the study has not been successful in obtaining detailed information on the project 

vendors, it has certainly discovered that the vast majority of the major vendors and sub-contractors are 

from around the Gulf Coast. It is only at the next level down, or even deeper than that, that the 

diversification comes to light. As an example, Hydralift was one of the Ursa vendors. The size of their 

contract was approximately $10 million, and they supplied the tensioner system for the risers. What they 

supplied was assembled in Houston, but their suppliers included cylinders that came from Chicago (cost a 
9 

few million dollars), and specialist composite accumulators that came from Nebraska. Of their ~$10 

million contract, maybe as much as $6 million was for hardware that came from areas other than the Gulf 

Coast. 

Compounding the problem has been the reluctance with which certain companies have supplied data: 

information has been slow, and at times very difficult to obtain. The number of telephone calls needed to 

obtain any meaningful data has been excessive in the vast majority of cases. There have been some 

notable exceptions, which is the main reason for the progress on the Morpeth project: the major players in 

the development of that project have been extremely helpful, but that cooperation did not necessarily filter 

down to the next level of companies. Unfortunately, British Borneo has now been taken over by Agip, 

and most of the staff have had to find alternative employment. 

Shell has been extremely cooperative with information on vendors, but have been reticent in 

supplying any cost data. It is corporate policy not to disclose the value of contracts that make up the 

development. This has made it difficult to meaningfully assess their fabrication vendor list, and 

impossible to determine labor usage at the various facilities. Alternatively, they have supplied excellent 

data on their operating expenditures and project management labor usages. These data have been helpful 

in putting deepwater facility operations into perspective, but they cannot be analyzed with respect to labor 

markets because the number of persons employed in any given aspect is so small. Indeed, this could be a 

problem associated with gathering data on suppliers to the subcontractors: each supplier will have a 

relatively small percentage of their output assigned to any specific project, so at the lower levels, the 

impact of deepwater development on any given company is reduced. It should not be inferred that the 

overall impact is low, but as one investigates further down the supply hierarchy, the impact is reduced. 

Difficulty in gathering data was not necessarily because the companies were trying to be 

uncooperative: there has been a major change in the way oil companies work over the last decade, and 

they do not currently have the personnel to supply the requested information. Their personnel are 

extremely busy, particularly at this time of increased development. There was a willingness in some 

companies to help the study, but no time to put in the level of effort required. It is only the major oil 

companies that have a strong public relations department that can field questions about a particular 

development. Most of the independent oil companies would have to rely on the project personnel to 

supply the needed information, and while these people may be willing to “talk over lunch,” they have full 

time jobs managing the next development. 

The lack of cooperation at the next level down, the vendors of equipment to be installed on the decks, 

and the process equipment suppliers, was probably more due to a lack of understanding as to the 

advantage in assisting the project. They supply a certain type of separator, for example. It makes no 

difference to them if it is on a deepwater or shallow water platform. Hence, they do not see any 

advantage in showing diversification of input to deepwater facilities. In addition, they are in a highly 

competitive market and see no advantage in using their time to supply the requested information, and are 

possibly somewhat concerned that the data may help their competition: why risk supplying data when 

there is no advantage, even if the risk is small? 

1.5. POSSIBLE WAY FORWARD FOR FUTURE STUDIES

The extant study has had limited success in unearthing the desired level of national involvement in 

deepwater developments. This is for two main reasons: the main contractors are all located around the 

Gulf Coast, and because of a general unwillingness to dedicate resources to gather information. Also it is 

clear that while there are differences between the different development methods, they are largely ones of 

magnitude rather than content. Consequently, it may be possible for a future study to take a deepwater 

project that is under development and trace the content one stage further back – to find out where the 

vendors get their supplies. 

Gulf Island Fabricators, who were the major fabricator for the Morpeth hull and deck, gave the study 

team a list of their suppliers of steel and paint. Over 40 percent of their expenditure on basically steel and 

paint was in Louisiana. How many steel mills are there in Louisiana? Clearly they are buying from 

suppliers rather than from the mills themselves. This will be, in part, because of the way the project was 

structured. They did not have the opportunity to purchase the steel in one block. Some of this steel will 

have come from overseas, some from within the U.S., but this could not be determined through the 

present study. 
10 

If one were to research an ongoing project, it may be possible to trace the equipment suppliers back 

more easily than is possible on an old project, but this will not be a simple task. When equipment is 

ordered, there are situations in which the supplier does not know to which project the equipment is going. 

They simply know that a specific customer has ordered a specific “widget” based on a specific purchase 

order, and it must be supplied to a specific specification. They cannot necessarily tie that to any particular 

project. In addition, the oil companies are using single contracts that cover almost the entire project. 

Hence they will generally have less information about the details of the constituent components that are 

ordered by their engineering, procurement, installations, and construction (EPIC) contractors. Hence, an 

extra level is added that must be penetrated in order to determine the true source of the equipment. In 

addition, the power of the oil company to pressure the contractor is diminished as one moves away from 

the main contractor. 

When an installation is classed by ABS, surveyors will attend to ensure that all the major components 

are manufactured to the required classification society rules. Consequently, they will attend all over the 

U.S. and the world inspecting equipment. These data could be used to determine where the pieces of 

equipment which make up an installation come from, but even this would not be simple. The ABS 

contract will normally be with the vendor of each piece of equipment. Hence, to release that information, 

they would need to get the permission of each vendor. In addition, there would be no information on the 

value of each component, and certainly no information on the percentage of a company’s capacity used in 

each item. There are a number of ways that parts of the required information could be obtained, but the 

systems are not set up to gather additional information. It would probably not be possible to get the 

individual surveyors to try to get additional information because of the number of different surveyors 

involved, and because of the added expense – who would pay for it, and how would it be tracked? In 

addition, unless the process equipment is specifically being classed, there could be large holes in the data 

collected. 

It is not entirely clear what is the best way forward. In part it depends on the priority for the different 

types of information. If the source of supplies is wanted, then that could probably be determined from 

classification society records, with permission from each vendor, but even this would need to be done on 

an ongoing construction project: it could not realistically be done retroactively. 

Information on the price breakdown on a specific project could probably be gathered from the oil 

company via their AFEs (Approved for Construction Expenses). But this again would need to be agreed 

to up front, before project start-up, and getting cooperation from all parties could still be problematic. 

The greatest difficulty comes in getting all the information tied together: the source of the steel: the 

value of the steel: the effect of that steel production on local labor. The AFE records will say who was 

paid a specific sum of money, but not where they subsequently spent it. Hence, the tracking back will be, 

at best, difficult. The class survey records will give the location of the supplies (although these may be 

limited if the topside is not classed) but will have no information on value. The individual subcontractors may have a high percentage of their business with the offshore industry, but any specific 

project may have a minor impact on their labor usage, and an even smaller effect on a local market. The 

components of the information may well be discoverable by one method or another. It may even be 

possible to get all the information, but it will be very difficult to get all the information tied together in a 

way that it can be analyzed. A map similar to the one produced by Shell (see Figure 14) could be 

produced through use of class records. Analyses of labor may be possible by using AFE data, and 

through company assistance, but that would be much more difficult. 

It should be possible to complete a project similar to this on a project that is identified prior to its 

commencement, but realistic goals will need to be set, and the types of data wanted realistically 

identified. 
11 

2. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION GATHERED 

This section sets out the basic data that was gathered during the course of the project. Unfortunately, 

in few cases was it possible to get sufficient information on all the projects to undertake a meaningful 

comparison: where there is good data on one project, there is poor data on another. The three projects 

undertaken by the independent oil companies (Neptune by Oryx4

, Baldpate by Amerada Hess, and Sir 

Douglas Morpeth by British Borneo) were each the subject of special sessions of technical papers at the 

Offshore Technology Conference (OTC) in 1997, 1999, and 1999, respectively. These papers were a 

very good starting point for gathering the needed information, and gave a high level breakdown of the 

project costs. There were no technical sessions for Ursa or Pompano as neither represented particularly 

new technology at the time (there had already been sessions on a full-size TLP in the Gulf of Mexico, and 

a deepwater jacket at earlier OTC’s), but Shell had an excellent web site that gave a good overview of the 

Ursa project, including the overall cost of the project. Unfortunately, very little information was available 

about BP’s Pompano project, either on the web, or through published sources. 

Having surveyed the public sources, the next step was to gather information directly from the oil 

companies, and their contractors. To help in getting consistent information, a guide was developed that 

would help set out the types of information needed, and to document other possible sources. This guide 

allowed the gathering of a broad range of information on costs, from overall project, exploration, project 

management, and fabrication, through to final operations. It was well understood that not all companies 

would be able to supply all the requested information, but it had been hoped there would be more 

consistency than was achieved. 

The following subsections set out an overview of the information obtained from each of the oil 

companies, or other sources, on each of the projects. Analysis of the data is not realistically possible 

because of the lack of consistency in quantity and quality of the data, but the results are presented in 

graphical form. As these are generally isolated pieces of information, one cannot draw conclusions as to, 

for example, the difference in project management costs between a project by a major oil company, and 

one by an independent. Notwithstanding this, there is a significant amount of data that could be used for 

other projects in the future. 

The purpose of the study was not just to gather data on the costs of the projects, but to tie that into 

socioeconomic effects of the projects on the local communities. This issue is addressed in the section on 

Economic analysis, but as with much of the other data, no firm conclusions could be drawn. 

It may be constructive to initially give a visual presentation of the costs of the studied offshore 

projects in comparison with some other objects (or in one case, a sport’s contract). The shallow water 

minimal platform is at the lower end of the cost of an offshore structure, but there are certainly some that 

cost significantly less than $1 million, even as a new installation. However, when one then includes the 

cost of drilling the wells, then the price will normally increase significantly. Clearly the costs are 

approximate, but give an indication of the level of expenditure in different classes of industry. It is 

amusing to note that Alex Rodriguez’s 10-year contract is approximately the same as the cost of a new 

modern baseball stadium (see Figure 10). 

 

4

 The names given are those of the companies that installed the facilities. Ownership has changed in some cases 

since installation. 
12

Petronas Tower $

Billion

(World’s Tallest Building 1,4

high)

URSA TLP $950 Million

(3,900 feet Water Depth)

3,000 

passenger 

cruise ship

$300 Million

Baseball Stadium 

or Alex Rodriguez Salary for 10 years 

$250 Million

Boeing 747

$200 Million Morpeth mini- TLP

$159 million

(1,690 feet Water 

Depth)

Oil Tanker

$40 Million

Shallow W

minimal Off

Platform $1,00

Neptune Spar

$130 million

(1,930 feet Water 

Depth)

Baldpate 

Compliant Tower 

$215 million

(1,650 feet Water 

Depth)

Petronas Tower $

Billion

(World’s Tallest Building 1,4

high)

URSA TLP $950 Million

(3,900 feet Water Depth)

3,000 

passenger 

cruise ship

$300 Million

Baseball Stadium 

or Alex Rodriguez Salary for 10 years 

$250 Million

Boeing 747

$200 Million Morpeth mini- TLP

$159 million

(1,690 feet Water 

Depth)

Oil Tanker

$40 Million

Shallow W

minimal Off

Platform $1,00

Neptune Spar

$130 million

(1,930 feet Water 

Depth)

Baldpate 

Compliant Tower 

$215 million

(1,650 feet Water 

Depth)

Figure 10. Cost of Offshore Platforms Compared to Other Structures and Contracts. 
13 

2.1. URSA PROJECT

2.1.1. Shell Supplied Data on Ursa - Fabrication 

Shell has a corporate view that they do not supply detailed information as to the cost breakdown of 

their projects. They have a web site for the Ursa project that sets out the basic information they are 

prepared to share with the public. This gave the overall cost of the project (at $1.45 billion) and described 

a split of approximately 65 percent to facilities ($950 million), and 35 percent to development drilling and 

completion5

 ($500 million). Figure 11 gives a diagrammatic estimate of the distribution of costs over the 

phases of the Ursa project. This diagram is based on corporate experience with similar projects, and has 

not been supplied by Shell, but the general distribution is likely to be reasonable. 

23%

13%

11%

8%

21%

8%

16%

TLP Hull 

Deck Structure

Deck Equipment

Tendons & Piles

Installation &

Commissioning

Pipelines

Design & Project

Management

Figure 11. Approximate Distribution of Costs for Ursa TLP (100% is $950 

million). 

Shell was extremely helpful in supplying other related information and costs for the project, if little 

data was supplied for the fabrication and installation. Each of the phases discussed in this section is 

covered in greater detail in the relevant section of Chronology of Field Development later in this report, 

but normally without costs. 

The Ursa field was first discovered in 1991 by wells drilled by the drillship Discoverer Seven Seas

(see Figure 12). This is a dynamically positioned drillship that was built in 1976 in Japan. For many 

years the Discoverer Seven Seas held the water depth record for drilling in the deepest water, and after an 

upgrade in 1996, is still operating as a drilling unit. The rig is operated by Transocean based in Houston, 

although in 1991 the owners were Sonat, also based in Houston6

. The whole issue of employment in the 

offshore industry is complicated by the phases in which a field is developed. As an example, most mobile 

drilling units employed in drilling exploratory wells are built overseas, but the operating companies, and 

many of the operating personnel are American. In addition, much of the equipment on an exploratory rig, 

although installed in a foreign yard, has been exported from the U.S. for that purpose. Hence, the 

domestic and foreign content of even the initial drilling is complex and difficult to trace. 

 

5

 It was almost impossible to get any direct information on the cost of exploratory drilling of the lease. The oil 

companies do not track this as part of the development cost. One must assume exploratory drilling is an overhead 

that is given a corporate budget, but not tracked through project development. It is possible to make some estimates 

of the cost based on the type of mobile drilling unit used, day rates at the time, and estimated consumable costs. 

6

 This is another example of consolidation within the offshore oil industry. Sonat became Transocean, then acquired 

some other drilling contractors, changed its name, and then reverted to the name Transocean. 
14 

Figure 12. Discoverer Seven Seas (Courtesy of 

Transocean). 

Prior to deciding on using a TLP to develop Ursa, Shell assessed a number of other development 

options, including a spar, compliant tower, and a conventionally moored semisubmersible option. These 

studies continued for approximately 9 months and employed approximately 12 technical staff. Based on 

normal consulting rates, this effort would be worth approximately $2 million although it is likely some 

additional work was undertaken by independent outside consultants. 

Once it was decided to use a full-size TLP for development, engineering design companies were 

contracted to undertake much of the design. Shell maintained a strong influence over the design, and 

employed a considerable number of direct personnel in the design effort. However, the detail topside 

design (deck and processing) was undertaken by an alliance between Waldemar S. Linder and W. H. 

Nelson (called DCA), and the hull structural details were developed by Han Padron (part of ABB), a 

company with many years experience with design of TLPs. The DCA had approximately 40 full time 

employees working on the project based in New Orleans. Han Padron had approximately 15 engineers 

and 15 drafting personnel based in Houston. 

This phase would also have involved model testing. In this a scale model of the chosen structure is 

built and placed in a wave basin so that its performance in a seastate can be assessed. This work was 

undertaken at Texas A&M university in College Station, Texas. The cost of the model testing was 

$155,000, excluding the cost of the model, and employed three engineers and four technicians for 4 

weeks. Typically a model will take 6 weeks to produce and will employ one engineer and two 

fabricators. Undertaking the model testing at a university helps the university support its facilities, and 

gives students a better understanding of genuine industrial projects. Texas A&M also did the model 

testing for the Neptune Spar and Morpeth mini-TLP. The costs for these were comparable to those for 

Ursa, but in each of the other cases, the University built the models. 

Project management is an extremely important part of any major project. The oil company needs to 

ensure that the contractors are doing what they are supposed to, on time, and on budget. Even on a fixed 

price contract one needs to keep careful monitoring of the budget as if the job goes too far over budget, 

and the contractor goes bankrupt, there is little recourse for reimbursement. In addition, there will be 

changes required to the contract, design, detailing, etc. and these need to be monitored. Shell had 40 

engineering technical leads in direct project management. These individuals would have each been 

responsible for a specific area of the platform (e.g., hull, deck structure, drilling equipment, risers, 

processing, power generation, and operational aspects such as installation, etc). Their job is to ensure 

that, apart from the schedule and budget issues, there are no incompatibilities at the interface between 

modules and components, that the design is progressing as expected, and that what is being produced is 

functionally as expected. 

In addition to the direct project managers, there were approximately 130 personnel employed in 

interface operations. These individuals would be more involved in the details of ensuring the components 
15 

are fabricated as designed. Independent of these, there would be, for example, a large number of welding 

inspectors, but it would be the job of the interface personnel to ensure that everything required to be 

inspected is inspected, that testing is in compliance with the specification, etc. Figure 13 gives the 

distribution of personnel by both discipline, and their location. 

New Orleans

38%

Houston

31%

Amelia LA

5%

Italy

4 %

Vario us Onsho re and 

Offsho re

22%

Engineering

19%

Operations

31%

Drafting

46%

Miscellaneous

4%

New Orleans

38%

Houston

31%

Amelia LA

5%

Italy

4 %

Vario us Onsho re and 

Offsho re

22%

Engineering

19%

Operations

31%

Drafting

46%

Miscellaneous

4%

Figure 13. Ursa Project Management: Distribution of 130 Interface Personnel Between 

Disciplines and Locations. 

The seven personnel based in Amelia, Louisiana, will have been working in McDermott yard on the 

deck and process equipment installation. Those in Italy will have been in Belleli shipyard working on the 

TLP hull. There were 28 personnel who were at various locations, both onshore and offshore. These 

would, in part, have been attending fabrication shops around the U.S. and the world ensuing that all the 

individual components that are part of the overall TLP are manufactured to specification, and suitably 

tested prior to installation. It is the locations of these 28 personnel that give an indication of the 

distribution of component fabrication, but even their locations would not be sufficient to show the full 

extent of the distribution of fabrication. 

Shell supplied a chart showing where they had expended costs on the Ursa project around the U.S. 

(see Figure 14). The number given in the state represents the number of vendors from that state supplying 

the Ursa project. This diagram gives some good information, but unfortunately, it is only part of the 

picture, and can be somewhat misleading. The difficulty is that the magnitude of the expenditure is not 

given. The largest single contract on the Ursa project, the hull fabrication, is estimated to be somewhat 

over $200 million, and was expended in Italy. The next largest was to J. Ray McDermott Inc, the deck 

fabricator, based in Amelia, Louisiana. This contract would probably have been a little under $150 

million, and is one of the 536 costs shown in Figure 14 to have been expended in Louisiana. At the other 

end of the spectrum, the smallest expenditure of the approximately 1,000 costs covered on the chart was 

also one of the 536 costs in Louisiana, and was for under $10. There is no indication within the chart as 

to the weighting of expenditure between the states. 

Another problem with the diagram is that it gives only where the costs were paid. This does not 

necessarily coincide with where the components were fabricated, or where the labor used in the 

fabrication was situated. As an example, the back-up to the chart gives the tendons as being paid for in 

Illinois. In fact the tendons were produced in Japan. Similar problems were found when assessing 

supplied data on the Morpeth project. The only realistic way to circumvent these problems would be to 

undertake this type of study on a project in progress at the time of the study. This way the real source of 

expenditure, and labor input to that expenditure, could be determined and documented, as discussed at the 

end of this section. 
16 

Figure 14. Number and Location of Vendors on Ursa Project by State 

(Courtesy of Shell Exploration and Production Co). 

McDermott supplied a limited amount of information on the Ursa project, but they did say they 

employed an average of approximately 450 personnel on the deck construction in the Amelia yard, near 

Morgan City, Louisiana. Their maximum number of personnel employed on the project was 700. They 

also stated that the project came in under budget, and they received some additional monies in the form of 

bonuses. 

Commissioning is a major exercise on any production facility. The normal plan is to commission as 

much equipment as possible onshore, prior to installation of the facility offshore. This significantly 

decreases costs, and problems are more easily solved onshore, but it is difficult to do all the 

commissioning before all the components are together in their final place. Hence offshore commissioning 

is still a major exercise. Independent of vendor personnel, who look after the equipment that they supply, 

there were consultants, 2 Shell engineers overseeing the operation, and approximately 40 Shell operations 

personnel. It is not clear if it was the case with Ursa, but on many platforms, the greatest number of 

personnel that will ever be onboard a platform is during commissioning, and often additional temporary 

accommodation is supplied for their housing. 

2.1.2. Shell Supplied Data on Ursa - Operations 

Shell supplied a considerable quantity of data on the operating costs, and personnel levels for Ursa. 

When Ursa was originally put on location, only 3 of the planned 24 possible wells had been pre-drilled. 

The general plan for a deepwater installation is to pre-drill a limited number of wells so that production 

can be started as soon as possible after installation. This ensures that there is some income from the 

platform soon after installation. However, it is expensive to pre-drill wells from an exploratory drilling 

unit, so the number of pre-drilled wells is limited. Once the platform is on location, and the pre-drilled 

wells are completed for production, the platform will be generating income. It is then that the rest of the 

wells are drilled. The reason it is cheaper to drill them from the platform rather than a mobile drilling unit 

is that you are not having to pay the market rate for a deepwater drillship or semi-submersible, in effect a 

complex support platform for the drilling equipment. The platform is already installed, and a relatively 

inexpensive drilling rig can be mounted on the TLP to drill the additional wells. Not all platforms are 

designed to allow a drilling rig (and all its associated equipment) to be installed on board because they are 

too small. This becomes a trade-off between the capital cost (CAPEX) of installing a bigger platform and 

the operating cost (OPEX) of paying for a mobile drilling unit to drill and maintain the wells. In the case 

of Ursa, because of the required size of the platform for the production equipment, and the time expected 

to drill the wells, it was clear that a platform mounted drilling rig would be the safest and most cost 
17 

effective way to proceed. It is of note that the drilling rig is not owned by Shell, but leased from 

Helmerich & Payne, who also supply the drilling crew. 

The accommodation unit on Ursa is sized for the number of personnel expected during the 

simultaneous operations of drilling and production, 156 persons. Drilling and production are 24 hour a 

day operations and there are two “tours” on the unit at any given time, each working for 12 hours. The 

crews are paid a monthly wage, but work only half a month offshore, although if working 12 hours per 

day, for 14 days out of 28, this is equivalent to a “normal” workday length of over 8 hours7. Figure 15 

shows the range of basic pay for offshore personnel. It needs to be noted that some of these individuals 

can get additional income from working overtime, when needed, but others are exempt, and expected to 

work the hours needed to complete the tasks. The chart covers both the drilling and the production 

personnel, so not all are employed by Shell. 

0

10,000

OIM

Production Foreman

Rig Manager

Toolpusher

Marine supervisor

Driller

ControlRoom Ops

Electronic Tech

Production operator

Electrician

Well Logger

Derrickman

Motorman

Clerks

Stewards

Cooks

Catering personnel

Figure 15. Approximate Monthly Pay for Offshore Personnel (US$ per calendar month). 

In addition to the full time personnel offshore, there will be other service personnel who come out for 

a specific task. As an example, it is common to employ a casing crew whose job is purely to run the well 

casing (piping installed in the hole to prevent the sides collapsing, and drilling mud leaking out of the 

hole). They come out to the rig, complete their job, and return to shore. There will also be maintenance 

personnel, United States Coast Guard (USCG) inspectors, Minerals Management Service (MMS) 

inspectors, and many individual specialists out for a specific task. 

In addition to the salaries of offshore personnel, there are many other expenses that need to be paid to 

keep the installation running, and the greatest of these when drilling operations are underway are 

consumables. The mud used in drilling is not just a mixture of clay and water, it is a specialized mix of 

constituent parts. Even the water has to be taken out to the rig as generally one needs to use fresh, not salt 

water. Occasionally oil based mud will be used. For this special types of oil are used that have the 

required properties, but are also nontoxic. Mud is an expensive commodity, and it all has to be 

transported out to the platform. Indeed, the transportation costs are significant, particularly during 

drilling. Because of the high usage of consumables, there will normally be approximately one boat a day 

visiting a platform during drilling, but this will be reduced to one or two a week during normal production 

operations. 

Figure 16 shows the Edison Chouest C-Port in Fourchon, Louisiana. This is an all weather facility 

for loading the supply boats that keep the offshore platforms operational. Although not a specific part of 

 

7

 Assume working 14 days on the rig, and 14 days at home. Time worked in a month is 14 days x 12 hours = 168 

hours per 28 days. But a normal 28-day period has 20 working days, so equivalent workday length = 168/20 = 8.4 

hours per day. 
18 

this study, it is of note that Edison Chouest Offshore operates over 100 boats in the Gulf of Mexico, and 

the vast majority of these will have been fabricated in their own yard. They have two yards, one called 

North American Shipbuilding which employs over 500 shipyard workers in Larose, Louisiana, and the 

other called North American Fabricator yard in Houma, Louisiana, that employs 300 shipyard workers. 

Figure 16. C-Port Supply Boat Base in Fourchon, LA 

(Courtesy of Edison Chouest Offshore). 

Edison Chouest, with its head office in Galliano, Louisiana, has over 3,000 employees worldwide 

with the majority domestic, and 200-300 overseas. A significant number of their employees are foreign 

nationals on H2B visas, and they have difficulty getting local labor because of the low unemployment 

levels in southern Louisiana (we were informed that it was less than 3%). The recently completed Laney 

Chouest, the largest anchor handling towing supply (AHTS) vessel in the world, “... represents tens of 

thousands of man-hours...” involved in the design and fabrication in Louisiana. At the present time,8

 the 

yard is producing one 280 feet long offshore supply vessel (OSV) every four months. 

Another significant expense is helicopter transportation, costing nearly $500,000 per year. For some 

of the near shore platforms it is reasonable to use crew boats to change out personnel, but at the greater 

distance to deepwater installations, the extra time makes it impractical. 

Figure 17 shows the operating costs for the Ursa platform, both for drilling and production. The 

production costs are given at the top of the diagram above the line, and drilling is below the line. It can 

be seen that the drilling costs far outweigh the production costs. This is not just because of the increased 

consumable costs, but the contractor fees are significant, and these include all the direct drilling 

contractor labor costs. Figure 18 shows similar data to that in Figure 17, except that it is shown by the 

same categories in both drilling and production. 

It can be seen that out of the total cost per day, the drilling consumables and rental costs account for 

nearly all of those expenses. The labor input to consumables is not known, but the drilling rental costs do 

not just support the cost of new construction for the drilling equipment (a platform rig will have a useful 

life of around 20 years) but also supports the office staff in the head office and the field office close to the 

shore base. 

 

8

 Summer 2003 
19

$0

$20,000$40,000$60,000$80,000

$100,000$120,000$140,000$160,000$180,000$200,000

Production Costs per DayDrilling Costs per Day

Total Costs per Day

Drilling and Operating Costs of URSA Tension Leg Platform

Supply BaseOil Co. PersonnelOther ConsumablesCrew TransportationFood & HotelSupply BoatsEquipment RentalContractor FeesDrilling Comsumables

Equipment RentalCrew TransportationFood & HotelSupply BoatsContractorMaintenanceProduction ConsumablesPersonnel

Drilling Costs per Day

Production Costs per Day

$0

$20,000$40,000$60,000$80,000

$100,000$120,000$140,000$160,000$180,000$200,000

Production Costs per DayDrilling Costs per Day

Total Costs per Day

Drilling and Operating Costs of URSA Tension Leg Platform

Supply BaseOil Co. PersonnelOther ConsumablesCrew TransportationFood & HotelSupply BoatsEquipment RentalContractor FeesDrilling Comsumables

Equipment RentalCrew TransportationFood & HotelSupply BoatsContractorMaintenanceProduction ConsumablesPersonnel

Drilling Costs per Day

Production Costs per Day

$0

$50,000

$100,000$150,000$200,000

SparFood TransPersRentCons

Total cost of 

drilling and 

Production per 

Day

Drilling Cost per Day Production 

$0

$50,000

$100,000$150,000$200,000

SparFood TransPersRentCons

Total cost of 

drilling and 

Production per 

Day

Drilling Cost per Day Production 

Figure 17. Drilling and Production Operating Costs of Ursa TLP. Figure 18. Ursa Production and Drilling Costs Per Day. 
20 

2.2. BALDPATE

A limited amount of information was gathered on the Baldpate development. There was an OTC 

session on Baldpate, and a certain amount of costing information was presented, but Amerada Hess was 

reticent in giving additional cost information. Table 3 gives the basic costing information contained in 

the OTC paper on Baldpate, paper 10914 in 1999. 

Table 3 

 

 Overall Costs of Baldpate (extracted from OTC paper 10914) 

Capital Expenditure Cost ($ Millions) 

Tower $137.6 

Facilities $64.0 

Pipelines $13.4 

Subtotal Construction $215.0 

Development Drilling/Completion $116.9 

Total Project Capital Expenditure $331.9 

Some points that were given are that they spent between $2 and $3 million on assessing other possible 

development options. This is comparable to the amount spent by Shell on Ursa, although in the case of 

Amerada Hess, most of the work was undertaken by independent consultants. 

Another point of interest is while no specific data were available on the cost of predevelopment 

seismic, interpretation, and exploration drilling, it was estimated they were between $100 and $200 

million. 

One area in which good data on the Baldpate project was available was from Paragon who did the 

topside engineering, equipment procurement, design, inspection, and much of the project management 

(see Figure 19). 

5% 4%

3%

27%

32%

24%

5%

Project Management

Procurement

Secretarial/Clerical

Engineering

Drafting

Construction Management

& Inspection

Expenses

Total 50 people 

(but not all full time) for

28 Months

cost

$5,700,000

5% 4%

3%

27%

32%

24%

5%

Project Management

Procurement

Secretarial/Clerical

Engineering

Drafting

Construction Management

& Inspection

Expenses

Total 50 people 

(but not all full time) for

28 Months

cost

$5,700,000

Figure 19. Baldpate Compliant Tower: Topside Engineering, 

Procurement, Inspection, Project/Construction 

Management. 
21 

2.3. POMPANO

Almost no information was available about Pompano, a jacket based structure installed in 1,294 feet 

water depth in 1994. The jacket and deck were both built by J. Ray McDermott on a lump sum cost basis, 

who also did the procurement, front end engineering design (FEED), detailed design, and marine 

installation. The deck was constructed in Amelia, Louisiana (near Morgan City), and towed out directly 

from there to site for installation. The jacket was assembled in Harbor Island facility near Aransas Pass, 

Texas. Some of the components for the jacket were fabricated in Amelia and then transported by barge to 

Harbor Island. The total weight of the jacket was 34,000 tons, and the deck weight was 4,600 tons9

. 

J. Ray McDermott was cooperative in supplying photographs of the various installations with which 

they were involved, but did not supply significant additional information. Contacts were made within the 

organization, and there was a general willingness to cooperate, but there never appeared to be sufficient 

time to gather and supply the needed data. Some information was supplied on the overall project costs as 

charged by McDermott, but there was no breakdown of labor costs. It is interesting to note one individual 

at McDermott stated he had gathered some of the labor statistical data together in the past for MMS, but 

could not supply it now. 

Very little information is known about the cost breakdown on Pompano, but there can be some very 

general estimations made concerning the labor costs and expenditures. A fabricated steel jacket costs 

approximately $2,000 per ton. The original plate steel will cost about $500 per ton. The two major stages 

the steel has to go through include rolling and seam welding it into pipe, then cutting and assembling the 

pipe into the jacket. The cost of the rolled and welded pipe increases the value of the plate steel from 

about $500 to $700 per ton. McDermott will roll most of their own pipe (it is assumed that this will have 

been carried out in Amelia, Louisiana) and then transport it to Harbor Island. There are some other 

incidental costs involved in jacket construction (welding rods, oxygen/acetylene, anodes, coatings/paint of 

the “splash zone”) but the vast majority of the added value is from the input of labor. McDermott gave 

the cost of jacket fabrication as $66 million, which is very close to the estimated $2,000 per ton. Given a 

jacket of 34,000 tons, the cost will be comprised of $17 million for the steel, $7 million is the cost of 

rolling and welding it into pipe, and around $42 million will be for fabrication labor. 

The deck cost was given as $35 million, but that will have included a significant quantity of third 

party equipment that will have been installed by McDermott in their Amelia yard. Although it did not 

affect the cost to BP, the deck fabrication costs went slightly over budget, but the jacket was on budget. 

Personnel were found within BP who knew about the project, but either they did not have the time, or 

the authority to release information on the project. The only information available was obtained from a 

very limited number of published data sources. Part of the reason was that the project had long been 

completed at this project start up, so most of the relevant information had been previously filed. It is of 

note this is the project that probably had the least foreign content. The jacket was fabricated in south 

Texas, and the deck in Louisiana. While much of the steel may have come from foreign sources, all the 

fabrication was in the U.S., and probably most of the equipment was of U.S. origin. 

2.4. NEPTUNE SPAR

The Neptune spar was originally fabricated for Oryx as the operator, but since installation, Oryx has 

become part of Kerr-McGee. It was the world’s first spar to be used as the base for well production 

operations, and is located in Viosca Knoll Block 826 in a water depth of 1,930 feet. Prior to committing 

to a spar, Oryx considered a number of other development options, including a TLP, a compliant tower, a 

floating production system, and a floating production, storage, and offloading (FPSO) system. The main 

reasons for choosing a spar were that it would be equipped with dry surface trees that would allow easy 

access to work on the wells, and remove any build up of paraffin. Another consideration was that it 

would be possible to move the spar a limited distance should it prove necessary to access some different 

reservoirs that could not be reached by directional drilling. 

At the time it was decided to develop the field with a spar, there was a patent held by Deep Oil 

Technology, Inc. (DOT) on spars, and DOT had formed a consortium for the use of spars to develop 

 

9

 The weight supplied by McDermott is 5,200 short tons (each 2,000 lbs), equivalent to 4,600 long tons (each 2,240 

lbs) for the deck, and 38,000 short tons for the jacket. 
22 

fields. Consortium members included DOT, J. Ray McDermott for topside fabrication, and overall 

installation, and Aker Rauma Offshore for design and fabrication of the hull and mooring system. 

The spar has a diameter of 72 feet and a length of 705 feet. The weight of the hull was 12,900 tons, 

and the topside weight grew from an original design of 1,200 to 1,600 tons. 

Table 4 gives a high level cost breakdown for the major components of the Neptune spar, as extracted 

from the OTC paper 8381, given in 1997. 

Table 4 

 

High-Level Cost Breakdown for Neptune Spar 

Item Cost $ Million 

Spar Hull and Mooring $53 

Topside and Installation $47 

Production Risers $14 

Drilling and Completion $42 

Engineering, Project Management, 

Permitting, & Misc. $16 

Total $172 Million 

The hull was fabricated in Pori, Finland, at Aker Rauma yard. Aker was approached to supply 

additional information contained in the OTC papers, but was somewhat reluctant. They did, however, 

state that most of the steel within the hull would have been Finnish, with the iron ore probably coming 

from Sweden, and coal for processing coming from Poland. The price given for rolled steel was $750 per 

ton, but this would be increased considerably by the time it is fabricated into the hull. The main US input 

on the hull was from certain import duties, and for the mating of the two sections at Ingalls Shipyard in 

Pascagoula, Mississippi. 

The hull was fabricated in 17 sections under cover, and then the sections were welded together to 

form two cylinders, one 390 feet long and the other 315 feet. The two sections were then put onto a dry 

transport semisubmersible ship and transported across the Atlantic to Pascagoula where they were 

discharged. The two sections were then floated into alignment, and welded together. Figure 20 shows a 

photograph of the Neptune spar after the two parts have been mated at Ingalls, and just as the tow is 

started out to the location. Once on location, it was upended, and the deck placed on top. 

Figure 20. Neptune Spar After Mating and Under Tow to Location. 

The Neptune topsides were fabricated by J. Ray McDermott in Amelia, Louisiana. The value of the 

fabrication contract was $28 million, which included equipment design and procurement. The contract 
23 

was lump sum, and went slightly over budget. The duration of the contract was approximately one year 

from September 1996 to September 1997 during which time McDermott used a total of 337,000 manhours. 

The mooring system for Neptune had two main suppliers: Vicinay for the chain, and Williamsport 

Wire Rope for the wire. Vicinay manufactured the chain in Bilbao, Spain. Their facility employs 237 

people of which approximately 100 skilled workers would have worked on producing the chain for 21⁄2 

months. The facility can run two or three projects at any given time, and they have four machines for 

producing chain of less than 3-inch diameter, and four for producing chain of over 3 inches. The Neptune 

chain is 4.75-inch. (The diameter of a chain is the basic diameter of the steel bar stock from which it is 

made. A single link of 4.75” chain will be just under 30 inches long, 16 inches wide, and will weigh 

approximately 400 pounds.) The total cost for the chain was $3.5 million at a price of $1.85 per Kg. 

The wire rope was manufactured in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, and was sheathed by Wellstream in 

Panama City, Florida. The total cost of the wire rope, including sheathing, was $2 million. 

2.5. “SIR DOUGLAS MORPETH” DEVELOPMENT

2.5.1. Overview of Project 

The “Sir Douglas Morpeth” (Morpeth) development is operated by British Borneo (since taken over 

by Agip) in Blocks 921, 964, and 965 of Ewing Banks area. The water depth at the location is 1,690 feet, 

and the installation of the Atlantia designed SeaStar mini-TLP was completed in the latter half of 1998. 

British Borneo acquired the field from Shell Offshore Inc. in 1995 and had a 100% working interest in the 

field. Shell maintains a financial interest. 

The development of Morpeth followed a somewhat unusual course: normally a field is chosen for 

development, and then a development option is chosen to suit that field. The reverse was the case for 

Morpeth10. 

British Borneo started developing shallow water interests in the Gulf of Mexico in 1989. They 

quickly formed an informal partnership with Atlantia Offshore Ltd. who supplied them with a number of 

minimal shallow water platforms on a turnkey basis. These tended to be low value contracts, mostly 

under $1 million, but they led to a confidence between the parties. Figure 21 shows a Sea Pony, similar 

to the small platforms installed by Atlantia for British Borneo11. When in 1993 British Borneo decided to 

speed up their move into international oil and gas exploration, they decided to build on this relationship. 

At the time, Atlantia was developing the SeaStar concept (see Figure 22), a mini-TLP that was to be 

ideally suited to marginal field development in deepwater. Through their previous working arrangements 

British Borneo saw the potential for a mini-TLP within their own deepwater plans, so entered a strategic 

alliance with Atlantia to gain early access to a SeaStar. In effect, British Borneo selected a development 

concept in parallel with the search for a field to develop. 

The SeaStar mini-TLP has a single central column that supports the deck above the water. At the 

bottom of the column there are three pontoons that radiate out from the column. At the outer end of these 

pontoons there are two tendons that are attached to piles in the seabed directly below them. The pontoons 

give spread between the tendons, thereby ensuring the platform’s stability. 

The choice of the Morpeth field was in part driven by what was suitable for development by a miniTLP. The requirements were that the field could be developed with subsea trees12. This meant there had 

to be low workover/intervention requirements, a field that could be developed with a small number of 

wells, and wells that had good flow assurance. Figure 23 shows the overall layout of the Morpeth field, 

 

10 Much of what follows by way of background comes from the Offshore Technology Conference paper 10854, 

1999, “Morpeth Field Development Overview.” 

11 Atlantia has recently been acquired by IHC and has sold off the shallow water platform business to Seahorse 

Platform Partners Ltd. 

12 Since the installation of Morpeth and Allegheny, Atlantia have developed a version of the SeaStar that can have 

dry trees up on the deck. This option was not available at the time. 
24 

Figure 21. Sea Pony Shallow Water Platform 

(Courtesy of Seahorse Platform Partners 

Ltd.). 

Figure 22. Sir Douglas Morpeth Mini-TLP 

Installed (Courtesy of Atlantia Offshore 

Ltd.). 
25 

Figure 23. Morpeth Field Layout Showing Subsea 

Wellheads and Pipeline to Shallow Water 

Facility (Courtesy of Atlantia Offshore Ltd.). 

with the subsea wellheads on the left side of the picture, with risers coming up to the platform, and export 

risers/pipelines going off to the shallow water facility 19 miles away in 366 feet water on the right of the 

diagram. 

The project to install a platform at Morpeth was carried out under two main contracts: Atlantia to 

supply the mini-TLP, and J. Ray McDermott to install it13. The setup of the supply contract was 

somewhat unusual in that it was on a cost plus basis, with Atlantia being the main contractor. In effect, 

British Borneo gave Atlantia the responsibility of supplying a suitable structure on budget, and on time. 

It would not have been possible for Atlantia to undertake the project on a lump-sum basis the way they 

had done for the shallow water developments. Given the size of their organization (roughly 200 

employees) they would not have been in a position to offer a turnkey contract on a platform costing nearly 

$100 million. None of their subcontractors would have had sufficient confidence in being paid unless 

British Borneo guaranteed payment. In addition, the design had not been completed by the time the 

contract was awarded. 

The hull was built by Gulf Island Fabrication Inc. in Houma, Louisiana. They also built the deck 

structure, and assembled the various components supplied by other vendors. This was one of the largest 

contracts on the project. Gulf Island is an experienced yard that has been building jackets and decks for 

many years. They have tried, and are generally successful at keeping a stable workforce, and to this end 

train a large percentage of their own labor. This is supplemented, by additional labor taken on an as 

needed basis. 

2.5.2. Information Gathered 

Information has been supplied to the study team by British Borneo, Atlantia, Gulf Island, and a 

number of other contractors and subcontractors. Of assistance was a list of vendors supplied by Atlantia, 

although this contained only an indication as to the level of costs, not the actual costs themselves. It is 

through this list that most of the information has been obtained, however, the problem of where the 

various materials have come from, as discussed in the “Summary and Status”, has not been overcome. 

Probably even more than the Ursa TLP, most of the direct labor and suppliers have been from around the 

Gulf Coast. Also as discussed in the Summary, it is likely that much of the equipment has origins outside 

the Gulf Coast area, but so far it has been outside the scope to follow that course. In addition, it is too late 

to get those sorts of details from the vendors: they will have changed their suppliers over the years, and 

will probably not remember whom they used. 

 

13 There were other contracts for the drilling, subsea systems, risers, pipelines, etc. 
26 

The project costs are given in an OTC paper from the special Morpeth session, OTC 10854. These 

are shown in Table 5. In addition to these costs was the cost of drilling the exploratory and development 

wells which were a total of $152 million. Figure 24 gives a high-level breakdown of the costs. The left 

side of the chart shows the total costs comprising the physical installation of the TLP at the top, and the 

drilling at the bottom. The costs for the TLP are graphically broken down to their major constituent parts. 

The drilling costs are broken into the three major costs, and an indication as to what is involved in each of 

those. 

Table 5 

 

Breakdown of Principal Costs for Morpeth (from OTC paper 10854) 

Equipment/ Service Cost ($MM) 

TLP 

Foundation $2.91 

Tendon System $15.10 

Hull $24.16 

Deck $6.98 

Production Facilities $24.59 

Facilities Hook up $12.08 

Installation $13.38 

Subtotal $99.20 

Subsea 

Trees $12.90 

Controls $3.49 

Flowlines $8.00 

Installation $3.15 

Subtotal $27.54 

Pipelines 

Materials $8.18 

Installation $12.41 

Subtotal $20.59 

3rd Party Costs 

Subtotal $11.67 

Project Total $159.00 

Figure 25 gives a sample breakdown of the costs for constructing the physical TLP without any of the 

other associated facilities (e.g., pipelines, subsea equipment, etc.). It also shows the locations of some of 

the vendors that supplied goods or services to the facility. In some cases additional information is known 

about these vendors, and they are discussed in further detail later in this section, but in most cases, all that 

is known is what was supplied, and the location of the vendor. 

British Borneo supplied some useful information about the project background, and some of the other 

costs, although, because of the way it was contracted to Atlantia, there were relatively few additional 

costs. It is interesting to compare the project management team size for the Morpeth development with 

that for Ursa. British Borneo had a maximum of 11 personnel on the team compared to 130 from Shell on 

Ursa, although this is not an entirely fair comparison as the Shell number includes more on-site personnel 

who would have been supplied by Atlantia in the case of Morpeth. The British Borneo project 

management budget was $750,000. 

The operational aspects of Morpeth bear some comparison to those of Ursa. Morpeth, being a 

relatively small facility with limited production capacity of 35,000 barrels of oil per day (BOPD) and 38 

million standard cubic feet of gas per day (MMSCFD), has living quarters for 18, with a normal crew size 

of 13. There are no facilities for drilling on Morpeth. Ursa, with production capacity of 150,000 BOPD 

and gas of 400 MMSCFD, has accommodation for 156 persons, and is normally full during drilling 

operations. 
27 

Tension Leg Platform

$99,200,000

SubSea

$27,540,000

Pipeline

$20,590,000

Oil Co and 3rd Party

$11,600,000

Total Project Cost $311,000,000(Excluding cost of lease, initial surveys, seismic, exploratory drilling, etc.)

Total TLP, Installation, Pipelines, Subsea, etc $159,000,000 (51% ) Development Drilling & Completion $152,000,000 (49% )

Cost of Semi-Submersible

“Ocean Endeavor”

approx. $80,000/day

Cost of Drilling Consumables

approx. $100,000/day

Cost of Transportation 

Services

(Boats & Helicopters)

approx. $20,000/day

~75 Man Crew

Debt for Fabrication/Modifications 

of Semi-Submersible

Maintenance

Insurance

Spare parts

Support of Shore Base

Support of Head Office in Houston

Drilling Mud

Bulk Barite

Sacked Mud Additives

Cement

Drilling Water

Drilling Bits

Down-Hole Tools

Well Casing Pipe

Production Tubing

Diesel

Well Logging

Development Drilling and Completion

49% of Total Cost

Total TLP, Installation, Pipelines, Subsea, etc

51% of Total Cost

Helicopter Flights

Supply Boats

Crew Boats

Tension Leg Platform

$99,200,000

SubSea

$27,540,000

Pipeline

$20,590,000

Oil Co and 3rd Party

$11,600,000

Total Project Cost $311,000,000(Excluding cost of lease, initial surveys, seismic, exploratory drilling, etc.)

Total TLP, Installation, Pipelines, Subsea, etc $159,000,000 (51% ) Development Drilling & Completion $152,000,000 (49% )

Cost of Semi-Submersible

“Ocean Endeavor”

approx. $80,000/day

Cost of Drilling Consumables

approx. $100,000/day

Cost of Transportation 

Services

(Boats & Helicopters)

approx. $20,000/day

~75 Man Crew

Debt for Fabrication/Modifications 

of Semi-Submersible

Maintenance

Insurance

Spare parts

Support of Shore Base

Support of Head Office in Houston

Drilling Mud

Bulk Barite

Sacked Mud Additives

Cement

Drilling Water

Drilling Bits

Down-Hole Tools

Well Casing Pipe

Production Tubing

Diesel

Well Logging

Development Drilling and Completion

49% of Total Cost

Total TLP, Installation, Pipelines, Subsea, etc

51% of Total Cost

Helicopter Flights

Supply Boats

Crew Boats

Figure 24. Sir Douglas Morpeth Mini-TLP: Cost Breakdown. 
28 

Facilities Hook-up

$12,080,000

Production Facilities

$24,590,000

Hull

$24,160,000

Tendon Systems

$15,100,000

Installation

$13,380,000

Deck

$6,980,000

Foundations

$2,910,000

Generators from 

Minnesota

Tendons from 

Japan

Top and Bottom Tendon 

Connectors from Texas

Tendon Connectors 

from UK

Steel and Paint from16 different 

US States around the lower 48 

Turbo-Generators 

from California

Lifeboats from 

California

Diesel Engines 

from Illinois

Living Quarters 

from Texas

Production Equipment mainly from 

Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma

Engineering and Labor from 

around Gulf Coast

Installation Contractor 

from Texas

Tendon Flex Joint Springs 

from Pennsylvania 

Tendon Flex 

Joints from Texas

Facilities Hook-up

$12,080,000

Production Facilities

$24,590,000

Hull

$24,160,000

Tendon Systems

$15,100,000

Installation

$13,380,000

Deck

$6,980,000

Foundations

$2,910,000

Generators from 

Minnesota

Tendons from 

Japan

Top and Bottom Tendon 

Connectors from Texas

Tendon Connectors 

from UK

Steel and Paint from16 different 

US States around the lower 48 

Turbo-Generators 

from California

Lifeboats from 

California

Diesel Engines 

from Illinois

Living Quarters 

from Texas

Production Equipment mainly from 

Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma

Engineering and Labor from 

around Gulf Coast

Installation Contractor 

from Texas

Tendon Flex Joint Springs 

from Pennsylvania 

Tendon Flex 

Joints from Texas

Figure 25. Breakdown of $99,200,000 Cost for Morpeth Platform with Sample Vendor Locations 

(Note: Costs do not include subsea and pipeline costs.). 

The project was relatively fast track, so it is difficult to separate out the project planning costs, and 

those associated with considering alternative development options. The date of first oil was less than two 

years after completion of the appraisal well, and there was no separate tracking of early project 

management costs. However, as far as it can be determined, approximately $3.5 million was spent by 

British Borneo before the project was formally sanctioned. 

The drilling cost for the development was split into two parts, the appraisal well and the development 

drilling. All the drilling was undertaken by the Ocean Endeavor, a semisubmersible owned by Diamond 

Offshore Inc. The unit was built in 1975 in Australia and has been based in the Gulf of Mexico since mid 

1980s. It cost $35 million when built, and is capable of operating in water depths of up to 2,000 feet. It is 

operated by Diamond Offshore, which is based in Houston. Diamond has just over 30 semisubmersible 

units, approximately half operating in the U.S. Gulf, and half overseas. In addition they have 14 jack-ups, 

most of which are domestic. There are approximately 300 people employed in the Houston head office, 

with 3,000 domestically offshore. The overseas units will have a certain number of expatriate crew, but 

will also employ a significant number of local labor. 
29 

The day rate for the Ocean Endeavor ranged from $37,000 to $82,000 per day. Note that was a 

relatively low rate for a semisubmersible, but this is in part because of the age of the unit14, and the 

relatively shallow water depth limit. Some of the constituent parts of the cost of drilling the wells is 

given in Figure 24, but it is of note the main costs associated with the rig day rate are normally debt 

repayment and labor. In the case of the Ocean Endeavor it is unlikely there is still any debt outstanding, 

but the maintenance costs may be increased, however, a large percentage of the day rate will be direct 

labor costs. 

The appraisal well was flow tested to ensure the expected flow from the well, and this produced 

around $50,000 revenue, but this is insignificant by comparison to the cost of flow testing. It is the 

results of the flow testing that are important rather than the revenue generated. 

It is interesting British Borneo estimates the cost of abandoning the structure and wells would be 

approximately $13.5 million. There is certainly a possibility the unit could be reused at another location, 

and the assumption is that the main components which would require replacement would be the tendons 

and piles. 

2.5.3. Gulf Island Fabrication Inc. Data 

Gulf Island Fabrication Inc., the company that fabricated the hull and assembled the deck, was 

extremely cooperative. They supplied the information that was the basis for the economic analysis 

undertaken by Joachim Singelmann (see next section of report). They also supplied information on the 

cost and source of their supplies to build the hull and deck structure. It needs to be borne in mind that the 

vast majority of the Gulf Island work involved steel construction and painting. Hence their main supplies 

would be steel, paint, and anodes. While the majority of those subcontracts are provided by companies 

located in Louisiana, there is no way of ascertaining the extent to which goods and services where 

produced at the site of those companies. It appears that for a substantial proportion of those subcontracts, 

funding was merely passed though that location for actual work performed elsewhere. It is clear, since 

there are no significant steel mills in Louisiana, most of the steel purchased in Louisiana must have been 

bought from suppliers who had imported it from either other states or other countries. 

Keeping in mind the recorded expenditures may not represent any significant associated labor, simply 

a throughput of cash, most of the outside costs originated in two states, Texas and Louisiana. Together 

they account for 85 percent of all outside costs. This can clearly be seen by reference to Figure 26, which 

shows the expenditure by state. All other states are in the single digits, with Mississippi companies 

coming in as distant third, receiving 4.1 percent of all outside contracts. The information is shown by 

state on the U.S. map in Figure 27. 

 

14 It is normal to design a mobile offshore drilling unit to have a 25-year life. That does not mean they cannot 

successfully operate for longer, but maintenance will increasingly become a problem. On some units, technical 

obsolescence can also be important: the equipment is too old, and parts are not available to repair it. 
30 

Alabama

Arkansas

Georgia

Illinois

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Mississippi

North Carolina

New Jersey

Ohio

Oklahoma

Pennsylvania

Texas

Utah

Virginia

West Virginia

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Thousands

Materials and Outside Service Costs

Figure 26. Outside Expenditure by Gulf Island by State. 


33

Figure 27c. Morpeth Mini-TLP Income for Primary Vendors by State. 

Morpeth Mini TLP Income for

Primary Vendors by State

LA. $70.23 MM

FL.$8 M

OK.$0.2MMCA.$3.6 MM

TX. $67.9 MM

UK/Japan$9.35 MM
34 

2.5.4. Atlantia Supplied Information 

Atlantia supplied a list of the main contractors and suppliers for the Morpeth TLP. Unfortunately not 

all the contact information was supplied, and some companies could not be contacted. In addition, there 

was no great rush to assistance from most of the companies approached. This was mainly due to a lack of 

time, but also there was no perceived benefit, and no desire to commit the needed time. Notwithstanding 

the difficulty in getting information, some companies were extremely cooperative. The following is not 

presented in any particular order, but gives an idea of the level of effort expended in supplying certain 

services or equipment. 

2.5.4.1. Atlantia 

Atlantia had some initial funding of $50,000 from the Small Business Administration (SBA) to help 

them undertake a scoping study on the SeaStar design of mini TLP. They later got an additional 

$500,000 grant to refine the design, and estimate they put in an additional $500,000 of their own money 

to help develop the design. All these costs were at a low hourly rate of $50 per hour, so the estimated 

level of effort to get a saleable design onto the market was $1 million representing 20,000 man-hours of 

engineering and drafting. When the contract was signed with British Borneo, Atlantia received the 

Tibbetts Award from the SBA. 

When Atlantia started they had 25 persons committed to the project. This later increased to around 

100 people by the end (and the subsequent start of Allegheny, another British Borneo mini TLP from 

Atlantia). The project management team started out as a single person, but grew to include a cost control 

staff of 2 to 3 full-time equivalent employees over a two-year period. In addition, there were 4 people in 

the contact & procurement department, 8-10 onsite inspectors, and 1 site construction manager/engineer 

based in Gulf Island’s yard. It is an interesting comparison, but for a simple shallow water minimal 

platform, Atlantia would have had but one site inspection person. 

2.5.4.2. Alan C. McClure and Assoc. Inc. 

Alan C. McClure and Associates Inc. supplied shipyard drawings, and to a lesser extent, detail 

engineering on the project. McClure is a Houston based consultancy, and the value of their contract on 

Morpeth was $1.8 million over 14 months. There were up to 14 people working on the project, including 

a full-time project manager, with about 85% drafting and 15% engineering. 

2.5.4.3. Survival Systems Int. 

Survival Systems supplied the lifeboats used on both Morpeth and Ursa15, and is based in Valley 

Center, California (zip code 92082) near Escondido. Morpeth has two 21-man boats, and Ursa has six 58- 

man boats. All the boats are built at the Valley Center facility where there is a 100,000 square feet 

factory employing 60 full-time employees. In addition, the company employs 25 people in New Orleans 

to do installation and maintenance on their boats. On average they produce three boats per month. Their 

supplies include the engines, glass fiber, etc., but most of the costs are down to labor. The Morpeth boats 

would have cost about $100,000 each, and the Ursa ones around $150,000 each. 

2.5.4.4. Solar Turbines 

The power generating system on Morpeth was supplied by solar turbines, based in San Diego, 

California. Not much information could be obtained, but the contract amount for Morpeth was 

approximately $3 million. Solar employs approximately 3,000 people at two separate facilities in 

California. Solar also supplied the turbines for Ursa. 

2.5.4.5. Offshore Technology Research Center at Texas A&M 

The Morpeth model testing was carried out in the model basin at Texas A&M, College Station (see 

discussion of model testing in section on Ursa, and in Field Development Chronology). The cost of the 

 

15 The lifeboats are sometimes referred to as Totally Enclosed Motor Propelled Survival Craft (TEMPSC). 
35 

tests was $230,000, including the cost of building the model. It took six weeks to build the model, and an 

additional 4 weeks to test it, employing two engineers and four technicians. 

2.5.4.6. ABB Vetco 

ABB Vetco designed and fabricated the tendon connectors. The value of the contract was not 

disclosed or known, but they said that up to 110 people would have been involved with the project. Steel 

supplies come from both domestic and foreign sources. Approximately 75 percent of the work would 

have been shop workers, and 25 percent office based. All work was in Houston. 

2.5.4.7. Smithco 

Smithco supplied the air coolers within the gas compression plant. The company is based in Tulsa, 

Oklahoma, where the work would have been carried out. The value of their contract was approximately 

$200,000, relatively low by comparison to their normal contract size of $500,000. The company has an 

annual revenue of $12 million and employs 200 people at two facilities (130 at one, 70 at the other). 

Under 40 percent of their work is for offshore applications, most of it being for onshore refineries. The 

shop personnel are paid between $8 and $15 per hour. They employ 8 degreed engineers, another 45 

office personnel, and 145 shop staff. It takes around 5 weeks to produce a small unit, and 25 weeks to 

produce a large one. 

2.5.4.8. American Bureau of Shipping 

The American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) classed the TLP and acted as the Certified Verification 

Agent (CVA). The total cost of the work was $700,000 and involved approximately 7,000 man hours of 

engineering and survey effort. The split of work was one surveyor employed part-time in the fabrication 

yard (in Houma, Louisiana) over the duration of the project for a total of 700 hours, plus another 300 

offshore for installation. There were 4,000 of office based engineering time employing up to 60 engineers 

in Houston, Texas. In addition to the standard engineering effort, there were another 1,000 hours spent on 

review of vendor equipment that is subject to class review. This includes items associated with power 

generation, fire fighting, safety equipment, electrical, emergency systems, etc. There were also surveys at 

the vendors’ facilities that accounted for an additional 1,000 hours. These extra hours would have 

involved a large number of individuals for relatively short durations as the equipment and steel would 

have come from many different sources. 

This breakdown of cost is comparable to the other projects on which ABS was involved. (Neptune 

spar was classed, and ABS was the CVA on Ursa. The costs for Neptune will have been slightly higher 

than for Morpeth. Those for Ursa somewhat lower.) 

2.5.4.9. Global Maritime 

Global Maritime had two separate functions on the Morpeth project: the first was as TLP consultants 

directly to British Borneo and the other as the marine warranty surveyor (MWS) for towage and 

installation. Their total fees were $400,000 of which $200,000 were for high level engineering 

consultancy involving a very limited number of personnel. The MWS work would have involved a mix 

of engineers and master mariners to ensure that good marine practices were adhered to during the 

transportation and installation. Although much of the work was in Louisiana, all the staff would have 

been based in Houston. 

2.5.4.10. Wellstream 

Wellstream, which is based in Panama City, Florida, supplied the flexible flowlines. Little additional 

information is known except that the cost of the flowlines was $8 million. 

2.5.5. Morpeth Conclusions 

Gathering information from the vendors to the project was extremely difficult and time consuming. It 

was not only difficult to determine the correct person to talk to, even if you knew which company and 

telephone number to call, but getting anyone to give the type of data needed was difficult. It was 
36 

certainly impossible to get consistently good data that could be used for comparison even within a project. 

To get data that could be compared between projects was almost impossible. Many companies apart from 

those listed above were contacted, but in most cases it was not possible to get through to the relevant 

person, and rarely were calls returned. Indeed, it tended to be the smaller companies that were most 

cooperative, however these were the ones with the smallest expenditure, and hence the least impact on 

labor markets. 

3. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 

ABS Consulting contracted Dr. Joachim Singelmann of Louisiana State University Department of 

Sociology to assist with the economic analysis of the data gathered from the various sources. As 

discussed in the introduction, the quantity and quality of the gathered data was limited, so meaningful 

comparison between the projects was not possible. The only data that was supplied in sufficient detail, 

and involving enough personnel, was that supplied by Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. in Houma, Louisiana. 

Gulf Island built the hull of the Sir Douglas Morpeth mini-TLP for British Borneo, although their actual 

contract was with Atlantia. They also fabricated the structure of the deck, and assembled the components 

onto it. 

Other labor data was supplied (e.g., Shell supplied a significant quantity of data on the operational 

aspects of Ursa, as discussed previously) but the number of persons employed on any specific aspect was 

insufficient to have a meaningful impact on the local labor market. This may be an inherent problem with 

the type of analysis that was intended for this project: the effect on labor markets outside the Gulf Coast 

may not individually be large enough to quantify. The majority of the U.S. fabrication will inherently be 

close to the coast (for transportation reasons) so it is only as one considers the smaller component parts 

that there is an increasing involvement from areas away from the Gulf. However, these components will 

be spread increasingly thinly as one looks at increasingly small components. There are some possible 

exceptions if some specific component happens to be manufactured in a small community that has a 

single industry, but generally, the components for an offshore platform are associated with relatively 

heavy industry. 

This following discussion provides information about the labor demand generated by the fabrication 

of the Morpeth platform. We will first describe the amount of labor and occupations that went into the 

fabrication of Morpeth. We then show how this labor demand relates to the labor supply in the labor 

market area around Houma in which the company is located. Finally, we show what other costs were 

incurred by the Morpeth project, and in which states those costs occurred. 

3.1. AMOUNT OF LABOR AND ITS OCCUPATIONAL COMPOSITION OF THE 

MORPETH PROJECT

Most of the onsite fabrication for the Morpeth project in the Houma area was carried out during April 

1997-August 1998. The project required a total of 423,874 nonmanagerial hours during that time period, 

for an overall labor cost of $6.7 million. Tables 6 and 7 summarize the amount of total hours and percent 

of wages for nonmanagerial work on the Morpeth project during the period April 1997-August 1998. 

Most project tasks were carried out by welders and fitters, painters, electricians, equipment operators, 

riggers, and sand blasters. (The category “Extra Work” consists of various tasks that the client asked for 

during the fabrication stage. The documentation for the fabrication process does not permit an allocation 

of these tasks to specific occupations.) Fitters and welders account for two thirds of all hours that went 

into the fabrication of the Morpeth platform. The pay for the various occupations required for the 

platform construction ranges from about $13 to $28 per hour. Clearly, that pay level makes those jobs 

very attractive, especially in the Houma labor market area. 
37 

Table 6 

 

Percent Hours and Percent of Wages for Morpeth Project 

Occupation Hours % Total 

Hours 

% Total 

Wages 

Brace Rack—Welders/Fitters 4,532 1.1 1.0 

Confined Space Watch— Technicians 1,912 0.5 0.3 

Dimensional Control—Technicians 

(Quality Assessment) 840 0.2 0.2 

Electrical—Electricians 2,600 0.6 0.5 

Equipment—Equipment Operators 42,546 10.0 12.3 

Field Fitting—Fitters 48,644 11.5 9.8 

Field Welding—Welders 58,328 13.8 14.0 

Loadout/Lofting—Riggers 6,004 1.4 1.5 

Material Moving—Laborers 5,621 1.3 1.3 

Painting—Painters 13,878 3.3 3.5 

Pipe Field Fitting—Fitters 41,784 9.9 10.8 

Pipe Field Welding—Welders 12,214 2.9 3.2 

Pipe Support—Fitters/Welders 1,588 0.4 0.4 

Pipe Rack—Fitters/Welders 681 0.2 0.2 

Pipe Shop Fitting—Fitters 6,238 1.5 1.2 

Pipe Shop Welding—Welders 10,084 2.4 2.3 

Pipe Supports—Fitters/Welders 9,160 2.2 2.1 

QualityControlDocumentation—Clerical 840 0.2 0.1 

Quality Control Paint Inspection—Painters 311 0.1 0.1 

Reblasts Welds—Sand Blasters 475 0.1 0.1 

Safety Training—Safety Training 1,561 0.4 0.3 

Sandblasting/Prime—Sand Blasters 26,462 6.2 6.6 

Shop Fitting—Fitters 51,925 12.3 10.3 

Shop Welding—Welders 39,269 9.3 8.6 

Extra Work 32,839 7.7 8.4 

TOTAL 423,874 100.0 100.0
38 

Table 7 

 

 Summary of Hours and Percent of Wages for Morpeth by Discipline 

Occupation Hours %Total 

Hours 

%Total 

Wages 

Welders/Fitters 15,961 3.8 3.6 

Welders 119,895 28.3 28.1 

Fitters 148,591 35.1 32.2 

Technicians 1,912 0.5 0.3 

Technicians 

 (Qual. Assess.) 

 

840 

 

0.2 

 

0.2 

Electricians 2,600 0.6 0.5 

Equipment 

Operators 42,546 10.0 12.3 

Riggers 6,004 1.4 1.5 

Laborers 5,621 1.3 1.3 

Painters 13,878 3.3 3.5 

Painters (QC) 311 0.1 0.1 

Clerical 840 0.2 0.1 

Sand Blasters 26,937 6.4 6.7 

Safety Training 1,561 0.4 0.3 

Extra Work 36,377 8.6 9.2 

Total 423,874 100 100 

Figure 28 shows the man-hour distribution of labor over the duration of the project. This again brings 

out the preponderance of effort put in by the welders and fitters throughout the project. Hours on 

assembly tend to be weighed towards the latter part of the project, as would be expected. Painting is 

weighed towards the second half of the project, but not specifically towards the end. Figure 29 shows the 

cumulative hours spent by all labor on the Morpeth project at Gulf Island Fabrication. 
39

0.00

2000.004000.006000.008000.00

10000.0012000.0014000.0016000.00

M ar-97 Jun-97 Sep-97 Dec -97 Apr-98 

Manhours per Month

Painting/P reparationW eldingQC/HSEAs sem blyMaterial Handling/MovingOtherFitting

Figure 28. Man-hour Labor Distribution on Morpeth at Gulf Island Fabrication. 
40

0

50,000

100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,000400,000450,000

Mar-97 Jun-97 Sep-97 Jan-98 Apr-98 

Cumulative Hours, All Disciplines

Figure 29. Cumulative Hours on Hull and Deck Fabrication and Assembly at Gulf Island Fabrication on Morpeth. 
41 

Table 8 presents our estimates of the average number of persons employed for the various project 

tasks during the 16-month duration of the fabrication. We combined all tasks that essentially required the 

same type of occupations. According to those estimates, the fabrication project employed a total of 662 

persons working a standard work week every month during the length of the project. This includes a total 

of 444 fitters and welders, 66 equipment operators, and 22 painters for those 16 months. 

Table 8 

 

Number of Full-Time Equivalent Workers 

Occupation Total 

Hours 

FTE per 

Month 

Welders/Fitters 15,961 25 

Welders 119,895 187 

Fitters 148,591 232 

Technicians 1,912 3 

Technicians (Qual. Assess.) 840 1 

Electricians 2,600 4 

Equipment Operators 42,546 66 

Riggers 6,004 9 

Laborers 5,621 9 

Painters 13,878 22 

Painters (QC) 311 0.5 

Clerical 840 1 

Sand Blasters 26,937 42 

Safety Training 1,561 2 

Extra Work 36,377 57 

Total 423,874 662 

Note: We estimate FTE employment by dividing the total number of 

hours worked by the standard work week (40 hours) and the 

duration of the project (16 months). 

3.2. OCCUPATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE HOUMA LABOR MARKET AREA

A key objective of this research project is an estimation of the effect of platform fabrication on the 

local labor market area. What is the demand for labor from this fabrication, and how is it related to the 

supply of labor in that local labor market area? To answer that question, we will first present a brief 

summary of the occupational structure in the Houma labor market area, to be followed by the impact of 

occupation-specific labor demand in this area that results from fabrication work for the Morpeth platform. 

A major methodological problem for the estimation of the effect of labor demand on a local labor 

market area in 1998 is the lack of industry-specific occupational information for that year. Essentially, 

occupation-by-industry data are available from the U.S. Bureau of the Census every 10 years. 

Unfortunately, the 1990 census data are likely to have a substantial error term, yet the 2000 census data 

for industry and occupation will not become available until late 2003. Given these data constraints, we 

chose three datasets for our analysis of the effect of the Morpeth project on the Houma labor market area: 

(1) the 1998 Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Survey from the Bureau of Labor Statistics of 

the U.S. Department of Labor for the Houma Metropolitan Statistical Area (Lafourche and Terrebonne 

Parishes). (2) A special tabulation of 1990 industry by occupation data (STIO) from the U.S. Bureau of 

the Census that was commissioned in conjunction with the Socioeconomic Database for the Gulf of 

Mexico Region 1930-1990 sponsored by MMS; those data are also for the Houma Metropolitan 

Statistical Area (Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes). And (3) Occupational Employment Statistics from 
42 

the Louisiana Department of Labor (OES-LA) for 1998 (and projections for 2008), covering Louisiana’s 

regional labor market area No. 3 that includes Assumption, Lafourche, and Terrebonne Parishes. 

Each of these three datasets has advantages and shortcomings. By presenting datasets with different 

advantages and disadvantages, we hope to minimize any systematic error in relating Morpeth-generated 

labor to the Houma labor market area. While the OES data cover 12 months of the Morpeth project in 

1998, they are only for occupations and do not permit the identification of occupational data within the 

fabrication industry. However, since many welding skills can be transferred among various industries, we 

decided that these data do have informational value for the present analysis of labor demand. The 1990 

STIO data have the disadvantage that they are somewhat dated, but they permit us to examine the 

relationship between specific occupations involved in the Morpeth project and the supply of those 

occupations within the two industries relevant for fabrication: Standardized Industry Code (SIC) 353 = 

Construction and related industries, and SIC 373 = Ship and boat building and repairing. Finally, the 

OES-LA data have the same advantage and disadvantage as the STIO data, but they cover a different 

geography (regional labor market area vs. metropolitan statistical area), and they also include 

employment projections to 2008 that might be useful for some policy makers who wish to view the 

Morpeth generated labor demand in the context of those projections. Occupational information from 

those three datasets are presented in Tables A1.1-A1.3 and A2.1-A2.3. 

3.2.1. OES Data for Houma MSA 

The 1998 OES data (see Table A1.1) showed 5,148 workers in the Houma Metropolitan Statistical 

Area (MSA) who were employed in the occupational categories of Welders (Occupation Code=93914), 

Shipfitters (89121), Riggers (85935), Painters (87402), Sheetmetal (89132), Assemblers and Fabricators 

(93956), and Operators (92998). The Morpeth fabrication project employed about 11 percent of workers 

in those occupations. (These occupations make up 88% of all workers for the Morpeth fabrication 

project.) Morpeth workers tended to have slightly higher hourly wages than other workers in the same 

occupations in the Houma MSA; thus, the Morpeth project accounted for about 15 percent of the total 

payroll for these occupations in the Houma MSA. 

3.2.2. STIO Data for Houma MSA 

The 1990 STIO data for the Houma MSA (see Table A1.2) show a total of 4,742 workers in these 

same occupations (Occupation Codes 579, 725, 777, 779, 783, 759, 785 and 859). The number of 

workers in these occupations who worked on the Morpeth project in 1998 amounts to 12 percent of that 

1990 figure, which is comparable to what was shown above for the OES data. 

The 1990 STIO data permit a differentiation of occupations by industry for the Houma MSA (see 

Table A1.2). Considering only the two industries of construction and related machinery and ship and boat 

building and repairing, 1,227 persons worked in the above occupations in 1990. By 1998, Morpeth’s 

employment of 583 workers with the same occupational skills made up 48 percent of employment in the 

construction and ship building industries. This is an indicator of the substantial impact of Morpeth on 

employment in those specific occupations within the construction and ship building industries. 

3.2.3. OES-LA Data for Louisiana RLMA 3 

The 1998 OES-LA data cover Louisiana’s regional labor market area (RLMA) No. 3, which includes 

Assumption, Lafourche, and Terrebonne Parishes. According to Table A2.1, there were 4,510 workers in 

the same occupations as specified in the section on OES data. Morpeth in 1998 accounted for 13 percent 

of that employment. 

3.2.4. STIO for Louisiana RLMA 3 

To compare the same geography with the OES-LA data, we also aggregated the STIO data to the 

same RLMA by adding Assumption to the Houma MSA. For the La. RLMA 3 in 1990, the STIO data 

show an employment level of 5817 in the occupations referenced in the STIO-HOUMA-MSA section 

(see Table A2.2). Morpeth’s employment of personnel in the same occupations was 10 percent of that 

total. Considering only the two industries of construction and ship building, Morpeth’s 1998 employment 

represents 40 percent of the corresponding 1990 employment for Louisiana’s RLMA 3 (see Table A2.3). 
43 

Comparing the impact of Morpeth’s labor demand on the Houma MSA and Louisiana’s RLMA 3, 

using the three datasets as specified above, it becomes apparent that 

1. Morpeth had a substantial impact on the demand for those occupations that are 

required for the fabrication of platforms (at least of the Morpeth type); 

2. this impact is especially large within the industry of the company where the 

fabrication took place; and 

3. there is not very much demand for those kinds of occupations in Assumption Parish, 

since the impact of Morpeth does not differ much between the Houma MSA and 

Louisiana’s RLMA 3. 

4. CHRONOLOGY OF FIELD DEVELOPMENT 

The following section describes the processes by which a field is acquired and developed. In 

practice, there are many variations in the details, and probably some in the fundamentals, but this outline 

has been written with the intent of giving an overview of the process, especially for people unfamiliar 

with the offshore industry. Since this project was started, and the original report written, there have been 

a number of documents published that cover some of the information contained here. However, there are 

still sufficient gaps in the literature for this document to fill. 

4.1. PRELEASE ACQUISITION

The profit potential of an oil lease is the overriding factor in determining an oil company’s interest in 

it, whether or not they develop it themselves. In some less developed areas of the world this may mean 

that sufficient acreage is offered at a sufficiently low price to make a bid attractive. In the Gulf of 

Mexico, an attractive price is typically not enough incentive by itself. The lease area must be studied, 

through the development and interpretation of geologic and seismic data, to determine if economically 

recoverable reserves exist. 

Though it is no longer a deciding factor, companies prefer that a field lies within or near an area in 

which they have existing infrastructure, so it can be serviced from an existing supply base and have good 

access to existing pipelines (particularly their own). For leases outside a company’s area of interest, the 

magnitude of the expected reserves must be greater in order to pay for the additional expense of 

establishing bases and infrastructure. 

Even at this early stage, companies need to consider how they would develop the field, in broad 

terms, were they to be successful in winning the lease and finding the expected reserves. There is little 

point in having a major discovery if it cannot be economically developed. One alternative to make the 

profit potential more attractive is to take on a lease with the intent of selling it outright or selling an 

interest in it, after having assessed its capability. 

4.2. PARTNERS AND OPERATOR

Depending on the results of the initial assessment of the lease, partners may be taken on or 

encouraged to buy in. It may be that a particular area looks considerably more attractive when the 

existing infrastructure of a potential partner is considered. The reasons for partnering are to spread the 

risk, and to improve the consortium’s capabilities in certain areas. It may be that one potential partner has 

expertise in a specific area that would be of value to a specific development option, so they may be 

encouraged to join in order to gain additional knowledge. Equally, a company may join a venture in part 

to learn how another company acts as the operator. For example, Shell had a financial interest in Morpeth 

and is reported to have taken an active interest in how a minor operator developed the field. This may not 

have been their primary purpose, but it was certainly an added benefit. 

Additional partners may be taken on later in the process as the need and opportunity arises. In a 

limited number of cases drilling contractors have taken a working interest in lieu of payment for drilling 

the exploratory wells, but this has always been after the lease has been acquired. Drilling contractors 

have never got into the position of competing with the oil companies at the lease bid stage. Drilling 

contractor involvement has had limited success because they are somewhat risk averse: they like a steady 

income from their assets, while oil companies are inherent risk takers. 
44 

4.3. BIDS TO MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

As with any competitive bid process, bids made to the MMS for the leases attempt to keep a balance 

between paying a low price and winning the bids on the blocks that are important. Clearly, the value is 

based on all the same factors that were used to decide where to consider bidding. But there may also be 

specific strategic issues, such as a desire to be seen as a major deepwater operator at the forefront of 

technology, which can influence the magnitude of a bid. But the aim is always to get the bid for the 

lowest possible price. 

4.4. MORE DETAILED SEISMIC

Having obtained the lease, the next step is to get a more detailed understanding of the potential 

reserves. Normally, unless already available from pre-lease acquisition activities, a more detailed seismic 

study is performed. This 3D seismic data, and its subsequent interpretation, gives the best available data 

on any potential hydrocarbon reservoir structures in the lease area short of actually drilling wells. 

Reserve estimates are made from this data though it cannot confirm the presence of hydrocarbons. Gas 

can be seen sometimes, but it is extremely difficult to distinguish between oil and water16. Fluid densities 

are easier to determine in shallow formations, but even in these, the level of data processing to ascertain 

the differences is considerable. In addition, the salt of salt domes can seriously degrade the quality of 

returned seismic signals.

4.5. EXPLORATORY DRILLING

No drilling can be undertaken prior to lease acquisition, but the 3D seismic results provide a good 

idea of where one should drill once the bid has been accepted. The cost of drilling is relatively high. A 

deepwater semi-submersible will cost around $200,000 per day (more for a drillship), and the 

consumable/transportation costs are approximately another $100,000 per day17. Given an exploratory 

well, excluding well testing or any drilling problems, may take 60 days to complete, the cost for an 

exploratory well will be on the order of $15 to $20 million. If significant hydrocarbon is found, then well 

testing may cost another $5 million, although there will be some return through sales of produced 

hydrocarbon. 

The number of wells drilled will depend considerably on what is found. If everything appears to 

confirm what had been expected, then the number of exploratory wells will be minimized; but should 

there be surprises, then it may be necessary to drill more wells to gather additional information. 

4.6. FIELD DELINEATION

Field delineation through exploratory drilling is an expensive exercise so it will tend to be minimized. 

If a field is relatively homogenous and can clearly be economically developed, then there is little need to 

determine its exact boundaries. Conversely, if the field is made up of multiple thin pay zones and 

complex geology, it may be necessary to drill more wells to confirm the presence of hydrocarbon in the 

potential pay zones. It may be impossible to access all the relevant areas by directional drilling, so 

determination of the field layout will significantly impact how the field is to be developed: from a central 

facility, or a series of subsea facilities tied back to one point. 

The economics of additional exploratory drilling and field delineation are very much in dispute, and 

there are those who suggest that too much time is spent determining to too fine a level the field properties. 

In addition to the cost of more exploratory wells, the process delays production start up. The earlier the 

decision to develop is made, the earlier a company sees a return on its investment. It may even be 

 

16 After time, and experience with a field, it can be possible to distinguish between oil and water, but this is 

generally true only for fields that have had a history of seismic signatures run. 

17 Rig day rates vary considerably, depending on the capability of the drilling rig, and market demand. When this 

project was started in early 2000, the day rates were as quoted in the text. Since then, the rates for deepwater semisubmersibles in the Gulf of Mexico have dropped to around $50,000 per day in 2003, or approximately one-third of 

what they were three years ago. 
45 

economic to have two vessels working the field, one drilling and the other, at a much lower day rate, 

completing the wells. 

4.7. WELL TESTING

All the fields included in this study performed some well testing, but not for very long. Well testing 

is a compromise for all parties, including the MMS. The oil company wants to get realistic data on 

reservoir flow rates, but does not want to deal with the produced gas. The MMS does not want the 

operator to flare, and hence waste, the gas. The operator wants to get some return on the well testing by 

flowing into a barge, but the economics are marginal, at best. The end result is that most of the wells 

considered in this study were flow tested for a maximum of a few days, many much less. 

A well that is producing 10,000 bpd will generate $200,000 to $300,000 per day. But the cost of the 

semisubmersible, with all its associated costs, will be around $200,000 per day, so the margin is small. 

There are some deepwater drillships available that have limited onboard storage capability, and can easily 

be set up for either early or extended well testing. Their use may alter the economics, but given their day 

rate is higher than a conventional deepwater semisubmersible, it is not immediately apparent how this 

would work in the Gulf except for early well testing. 

4.8. DECIDE TO DEVELOP

At some point a decision to develop must be made. As presented here, it is a linear process from 

lease acquisition to this point. In reality there is a combination of forward thinking about how to develop, 

and what development will entail and backward assessment of what facilities exist. Certainly it will be 

necessary to define the recoverable reserves, estimate the rate of recovery, and assess the expected cash 

flow. This must be compared to the cost of development and operations which themselves are dependent 

on the development option chosen. 

Most of the projects included in this study decided on the type of development relatively early on by 

considering the various factors discussed in the following section (Factors Affecting Development 

Options). Depending on how these factors are evaluated a specific development option may become 

apparent or several will be considered. For example, a company may evaluate the advantages of a spar 

versus a mini-TLP for a given development, while another may decide on a specific development option 

and search for a suitable field to meet its demands. 

It may transpire that even if a field appears to be economic, it is better to farm-out or sell the explored 

lease than to develop it, as was the case for Shell on Morpeth when they sold it to British Borneo. 

Sometimes a smaller company can develop a field more economically than a large one. 

4.9. FACTORS AFFECTING DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

There is a long list of reasons why one particular development option is chosen over another, and the 

major ones are discussed in the following section. Generally there is a strong logic behind why a 

particular route is taken, but it is not uncommon for circumstances to dictate that a company moves 

forward with a particular development option before they have had time to fully assess all the options. 

Consequently, the development decision becomes a best compromise at the time. 

The development decision is typically an iterative process as various factors are considered and 

choices evaluated. The layout of this report suggests a linear process of field discovery, decision to 

develop, choice of development option, development, etc. While there is a clear linear component to the 

process, as with any complex problem, it is not always reasonable to move forward without consideration 

of the steps ahead: it may be reasonable to decide to look for oil in ultra-deepwater, but without 

development options, one is not likely to start delineating the field. Without this process of thinking 

ahead, one can arrive at a situation where there has been so much commitment to a project that it is 

unstoppable, even though it may be economically dubious. 

Oil companies will often use consultants to help them assess the various development options. As an 

example, Amerada Hess spent about $2 to $3 million on preliminary engineering to assess the possible 

options for the Baldpate development. These studies included floating production options, TLP, and the 

compliant tower. For a number of reasons they relatively quickly decided that the tower was the way 

forward, but still had to study the type of tower, and the various options. While these studies tend to be at 
46 

a high level, they need to consider all aspects in order to be beneficial. One development option may 

appear to be the best, but if it means the use of, say, subsea wellhead, then well intervention techniques 

and costs must be included. 

4.9.1. Water Depth 

Generally the first factor considered when evaluating development options is the water depth at the 

proposed site. Not only does this affect the overall cost of development, but it also limits the 

development options. In shallow water (less than 200 feet) there are many fixed structure options 

including converted jack-up, caissons, lean-to-well-protectors, other minimal structures, and conventional 

jackets. Subsea development is probably feasible, but would not normally be considered because of the 

necessity to either bury the wellhead, or install some trawl protection so that it would not snag fishing 

nets. 

As the water depth increases, some of the minimal platforms become infeasible, but subsea becomes a 

possibility for individual wells. These can then be tied together and produced to a shallow water hub 

platform for processing. There is still a large array of minimal platforms designed for intermediate water 

depths, but there is a limit to the number of wells and process equipment they can support. Beyond 500 

feet water depth the number of minimal platforms available sharply decreases. A conventional jacket 

structure becomes more expensive as the size must increase in order to withstand the higher 

environmental loads; consequently they tend to be economic only if they are producing a large number of 

wells. 

Beyond 500 feet water depth it is possible to use converted semi-submersible drilling units. The first 

of these was installed in the North Sea in 260 feet of water, but they have been used in over 2,000 feet 

water depth in the Gulf of Mexico, and over 3,000 feet offshore Brazil. 

It is at around 1,000 feet water depth that the various deepwater options will be considered: compliant 

tower, spar, TLP, FPSO, etc. There are water depth limits to the compliant tower, and TLPs are not well 

suited to the shallower end of the deepwater spectrum. The limits of each option are discussed in greater 

detail in the section on types of structure. 

4.9.2. Size of Field and Number of Wells 

The number of wells, and how they will be drilled, has a major influence on the type of installation 

chosen. Each well takes up a certain amount of physical space on the platform, so the more wells, the 

larger the platform has to be. Also, if the wells are to have dry trees, then the structure needs to be able to 

support all of the additional weight. If the field is highly fragmented, then subsea development may be 

the best option since it may be difficult to drill all the needed wells from the central facility. Conversely, 

if the wells can all be clustered, then a single central structure will offer the advantage of being able to 

complete all the wells using a rig package rather than having to use a deepwater semisubmersible. The 

difference in price will be well in excess of $100,000 per day. 

4.9.3. Expected Production Rate 

A high production rate will necessitate larger separators and other processing equipment leading to 

higher deck load. In addition the export risers will need to be larger, as will all the onboard piping. The 

development option chosen would have to accommodate both the space for the equipment and its weight. 

It would be possible to undersize the equipment if the high production rate was expected for a short time 

only, but the economics would have to be carefully assessed. 

4.9.4. Type of Crude 

Subsea developments are generally best suited to wells with low workover/intervention requirements 

and with good flow assurance (i.e., wells that will not get fouled with paraffins, etc.). Though these 

limitations can be offset with chemicals and the application of other technologies, it may not be economic 

or practical to do so. These considerations may push the development option in a different direction. 
47 

4.9.5. Quantity of Gas 

If a field has very large quantities of gas, particularly at high pressure, then the size of the processing 

equipment will increase. As with the impact of high production rates and a large number of wells, some 

of the smaller development options may not be reasonable in this case if they cannot support the deck 

load of the larger structures. 

4.9.6. Financial Risk 

The speed with which any option can start bringing a return on investment is an important 

consideration in any development decision. Look at these examples: 

• The economics might dictate that a quick development via a subsea tie-back to an 

adjacent structure may be attractive if the short time to first oil and the low capital 

costs offset the higher operating expenses. 

• A smaller company may wish to install a less costly structure to quickly develop 

known reserves, without the additional expense of having to accurately delineate the 

field. Should later drilling show that the field is larger than expected, additional tiebacks can be installed. The downside to this approach is that the platform may not be 

installed in the best place, and additional expense may be required to either move it 

or use other drilling options. A major oil company may be in the position to fund far 

more detailed assessments of the field, but this may make the development less 

economically viable. 

4.9.7. Politics 

Government, corporate and industry politics may all play a role in influencing a development 

decision. Governments can affect how a field is developed through local content requirements, 

restrictions on particular development options, health, safety and environment regulations, etc. Corporate 

politics may arise through the influence of corporate perceptions that specific development options are 

higher risk than others. Additionally, past experience with specific contractors may lead a development 

team to favor a specific development option, not necessarily because it is the best option, but because of a 

trust in that contractor to produce a quality product on time and budget. 

4.9.8. Local Infrastructure 

The presence and ownership of local infrastructure influences the ability to economically export the 

produced hydrocarbons. The viability of a new facility can be compromised if sufficient infrastructure is 

not available. As an example, subsea completion options may not be feasible (because of maintenance 

costs associated with cleaning lines fouled with paraffin and hydrate deposits) if pipelines are longer than 

about 20 miles for oil and 70 miles for gas18. Conversely, it may be that the installation of infrastructure 

will allow adjacent fields to become economically viable which can make up for the added expense either 

through direct development of those fields or through fees paid by other operators to process their crude 

on your facility. Rates vary depending on the market, type of crude, location, etc., but would likely be in 

the range of approximately $2.50 per barrel of oil, and $0.50 per 1,000 cubic feet of gas. 

4.9.9. Length of Field Life 

Field life normally only affects the decommissioning considerations, since some development options 

can be reused at other fields. As an example, one of the reasons for choosing a spar for the Neptune 

development was that the structure would need to be moved to an adjacent field in order to continue 

production. This would be practically impossible with a fixed base structure. A TLP could be moved, 

but there would be considerable expense associated with obtaining new tendons, and installing new piles. 

A spar moored using conventional drag-embedment anchors can be relocated a short distance (e.g., about 

 

18 These estimates are based on discussions with industry representatives as well as data in the May 2002 edition of 

Offshore magazine. 
48 

100 miles) with relative ease (although longer distances would involve considerable complications 

because it must be towed vertically at slow speeds). 

4.9.10. Possible Re-Use of Platform as a Hub 

When the wells associated with an installation have paid out, a decision needs to be made regarding 

what to do with the structure. Decommissioning is discussed below, but an alternative is to use the 

facility as a “hub” for other fields with operating wells. A hub facility may continue to produce from 

other wells that have been tied back into it, act as a gathering point for hydrocarbons for piping to shore, 

or act as a maintenance point for pigging the pipelines. As a hub, the installation can become an integral 

part of the OCS infrastructure, with an extended life generating cash for the operator through fees for 

processing, flow-through, and maintenance. 

4.9.11. Need for Workover 

All wells need maintenance that requires entry into the well (intervention). Some well intervention 

can be accomplished using a coiled tubing unit; other wells require the tubing to be pulled in order to 

develop a new or different pay zone. If the facility has drilling equipment on board, or the ability to 

install a rig package, then the cost of these well interventions is relatively low. Subsea developments are 

somewhat more complicated because some type of vessel, such as a conventional deepwater drilling unit, 

is needed for any required well intervention. Since these vessels can cost around $250,000 per day, it is 

an expensive option. There are well intervention vessels that are much less expensive than drilling units, 

but their capabilities are limited (e.g., it is unlikely that they would be capable of re-completing a well). 

Consequently, there is a trade-off between capital expenditure, operating expenditure, and potential 

downtime, all of which need to be considered when making a development option choice. 

4.9.12. Decommissioning Costs and Technology 

Decommissioning is becoming increasingly important. In the early 1980s little consideration was 

given to what should be done with the old platforms in the Gulf, and around the world, when they reached 

the end of their useful life. By the early 1990’s it had become common to reuse shallow water platforms 

(i.e., removing them from site, refurbishing them, and then re-installing them at new locations), some 

even being transported overseas to new fields. In addition, the rigs-to-reefs program became well 

established. 

However, as an issue of importance to the development team, decommissioning was not given much 

weight until attention was brought to the issue by the Brent Spar in the North Sea. Shell had decided to 

sink the old platform in the North Atlantic, and had obtained permission to do so from the British 

Government. They then ran into problems with Greenpeace, leading to public outcry and boycotting of 

Shell gas stations around Europe. This raised the issue from one of technical and economic 

considerations to one of public policy. While still not as important a consideration in the U.S. as in 

Europe, decommissioning is now a serious issue for any development decision. 

A number of companies approached concerning this study have indicated that it is not exactly clear 

what will be required of them when the time comes to decommission their offshore facilities in the Gulf 

of Mexico. They assume that all the wells will need to be plugged and abandoned, but are not sure of the 

requirements for the remaining structure. Floating units (TLP’s, spars, semisubmersible based systems, 

etc.) are relatively easily decommissioned down to the subsea equipment. Clearing all the equipment off 

the seabed would be complicated and expensive, but probably not outside present technology. 

The difficulty comes with the bottom-founded structures (i.e., jackets and compliant towers in the 

Gulf, and including gravity based structures in other areas of the world). In shallow water the piles can be 

cut, and the jackets lifted onto a barge for reuse or shore-based dismantling. In deepwater it would be 

possible to sever the base using explosives and topple them in place, but recovering the structure would 

be extremely difficult. Structure recovery systems are being proposed for use in the North Sea, but, 

though they must lift heavy structures, they do not have to operate in such deep water or recover such tall, 

and often skinny structures as in the Gulf. 

Based on responses from industry representatives, the whole area of decommissioning has not been 

fully addressed by many of the companies involved in the Gulf OCS. There is uncertainty as to what will 

be required, and what is feasible, and, consequently, the issue is not being fully incorporated into the 
49 

development decision process. There have been attempts to organize effective education on these issues 

but the required knowledge has not necessarily filtered down to the project level at the time development 

options are considered. The issue is not one of lack of regulations, but a need for more open discussions 

as there have been in other areas of the world. 

4.10. DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

4.10.1. Conventional Jacket Based Structures 

The conventional jacket based offshore structure is what most people think of when they think of an 

offshore platform. Jackets have evolved over the years from the early platforms built on location offshore 

to the modern engineered structures of today, but they are still, in many respects, the same as they were 

over forty years ago -- fixed steel structures constructed of tubular members welded together and founded 

on driven steel piles. 

Some modifications to the basic concept have come about. In the middle 1970’s a two-piece jacket 

was installed in the Santa Barbara Channel off California. And in 1980, Cognac, a three-piece jacket, was 

installed in the Gulf of Mexico. Both of these were attempts to extend what is basically a shallow water 

technology into deeper water depths. Later jackets, such as Pompano and Virgo, were installed in deep 

water in a single section, but these represent the water depth limit in practical and economic terms for 

jacket technologies at present. 

Jacket structures are normally installed in two stages: first the jacket is piled to the seabed, then a 

deck structure, prefitted with all the process equipment and accommodation, is lifted atop and welded in 

place. 

4.10.1.1. Limitations 

Jacket structures are limited to specific water depths. This is not necessarily because one cannot 

design a jacket for deeper water, but because the fabrication, transportation, and installation become 

impractical, and their weight makes them uneconomic. In the Gulf of Mexico, approximately 1,500 feet 

water depth is commonly considered the limit, although this would likely be significantly less in harsh 

environments (e.g., North Sea and East Canada) and possibly a little more in benign areas such as West 

Africa. 

4.10.1.2. Advantages 

The main advantage of a jacket type structure is that based on the long experience with such facilities 

in the Gulf of Mexico, in shallow enough water depths (i.e., less than about 350 feet) one gets a stable 

platform that is not too sensitive to topsides weight for a well understood price. Other advantages include 

• Construction Experience. Jacket construction is relatively simple and well 

understood around the Gulf Coast, with many yards having extensive experience. 

Hence the potential for cost overruns is very much reduced. This is extremely 

important on most projects. (In the case of shallow water platforms it is possible to 

get lump sum fixed price bids for an installed facility, with little chance of significant 

change orders increasing the cost.) 

• Short Transportation. This expensive and high-risk task is minimized since jackets 

are normally built close to the installation site. 

• Installation Experience. Whether lifting or launching, jacket installation techniques 

are well established; hence the risks are better known and can be better controlled. 

• High Production Capacity. If a large number of wells and export risers are needed to 

develop a field, the increase in weight and other loads can be designed within a fairly 

broad range. 

• Expansion Capability. As with the ability to accommodate a fairly large production 

capacity, if it transpires that additional processing capacity is required at a later date, 
50 

it is likely that simple modifications will allow the addition of more process 

equipment, conductors, risers, etc. 

• Deck Installation. The deck can simply be lifted into place with few hook up 

problems. 

• Drilling Flexibility. The structure can normally be designed for the installation of a 

“rig package” to complete the wells perform workovers. In shallower water depths 

(up to approximately 350 feet) it may be possible to use a jack-up for workover, 

which could considerably reduce costs. 

• Low Tolerances. The deck and jacket can adjust to reasonable lack-of-fit (compared 

to other options), so tolerances do not have to be tight and are within the capability of 

many yards. 

• Robust Structures. Jacket structures are relatively robust and can withstand 

considerable damage (through collision, overload, etc.) without collapsing. 

• Hub Capabilities. Jackets are ideally suited for extended use as a processing hub 

after the platforms associated wells have dried up. Maintenance costs are relatively 

low as long as corrosion is kept under control and large topsides payloads can usually 

be accommodated. 

• Inspection Ease. Experience has shown where underwater damage is most likely to 

occur, so periodic inspection is simplified. 

• Export Pipelines. The cost of export pipelines is significantly lower than on a 

floating platform that uses, for example, steel catenary export risers. 

4.10.1.3. Disadvantages 

The greatest disadvantage of a conventional jacket is the limited water depth in which it can be 

installed. Other issues include 

• Water Depth. At greater water depths, jacket costs and weight are high for the 

supported topsides as compared to other options. 

• Repair Costs. While jackets can withstand considerable damage without collapsing, 

they are very expensive to repair. Underwater repairs are expensive (e.g., some 

require special chambers to allow dry welding) and dangerous, and the structure 

cannot be removed from location and taken to a yard for repairs. 

• Decommissioning. Jackets are expensive to decommission and remove from location 

once their useful life has been reached. 

4.10.1.4. Fabrication 

The jacket part of the platform, so called because it surrounds the well conductors, involves relatively 

simple construction. Jackets are fabricated from tubes forming a braced structure of typically 4, 6, or 8 

legs. Each face is normally fabricated flat on the ground and then “rolled up” into the upright position, 

with larger jackets fabricated on their sides. The intermediate bracing is then welded into place. The 

main skills and equipment required are the equipment to cut the tubular intersections, and welders to weld 

the individual tubes together. While some higher strength steel may be used, most of the structure can be 

built using standard “mild” steel. This keeps the cost of the steel down, but also means that welders do 

not have to be so highly qualified. Welding high strength steel requires extremely good quality control, 

and the welding rods need to be kept in an oven until ready for use in order to avoid “hydrogen 

embrittlement” which can cause the welds to crack. 

Because of the relatively simple construction, and potential risks associated with transportation, 

jackets are normally fabricated in the same general area were they are to be installed. There are some 

exceptions (frequently West Africa jackets are built in the U.S. or South America, and some of the large 
51 

West Coast jackets were built in Japan) but they do not apply to the Gulf of Mexico. There are many 

small yards that will fabricate shallow water jackets, but there are a limited number of yards that can 

handle jackets large enough for deep water. As an example, the base section of Cognac was built in 

Morgan City, Louisiana. Photographs of that being transported through the bayous show how little 

clearance there was on each side. Water depth for the tugs and barges can also be an issue. Also, rolling 

up the sides of a large jacket needs plenty of crane capacity, and adequate space for a large jacket lying on 

its side (see Figure 30). 

Figure 30. Pompano Jacket at Harbor Island Yard during Side Roll-Up 

(Courtesy of J. Ray McDermott). 

The platform deck structure (the part of the structure that starts approximately 20 feet above the water 

line) is normally fabricated and assembled in a yard under a different contract than the jacket. While 

there is a significant structural component to deck fabrication, there is also a very significant assembly 

component. It is the responsibility of the deck fabricator to assemble and install all the modules that will 

have been fabricated by other vendors. Such modules would include the accommodation, power supply, 

pump skids, separator modules, etc. that are used for the operations of the facility. This could involve 

modules from over 50 major vendors. The structural aspects of the deck will be highly dependent on the 

type of support structure (jacket, TLP, etc.) but the assembly aspect will be comparable regardless of 

platform type. Deck fabrication can lead to schedule bottlenecks because some components and modules 

require significant lead time (some in excess of a year). 

4.10.1.5. Load-out, Transportation, Installation, and Piling 

As stated above, most large jackets are fabricated on their side. Once they are completed, they need 

to be loaded onto a transport barge and towed to site. This is normally achieved by skidding the jacket 

along a “skid rail” onto the transport barge. The barge will be brought alongside the fabrication yard and 

aligned with the skid rails, both vertically and laterally. The jacket is then pulled onto the barge with a 

combination of winches and hydraulic rams. Normally, once the jacket has started to move, the winches 

are sufficient to keep it moving. As the jacket starts to move onto the barge, ballast has to be adjusted in 

order to keep the overall deflections of jacket and barge within reasonable limits as determined by 

analyses. Alternatively, if the jacket is small enough and the crane capacity great enough, a jacket may be 

lifted onto the barge. 

Once the jacket is loaded onto the barge it is “seafastened” to the barge to prevent it from sliding or 

rolling off during transportation. For short tows, as would be normal in the Gulf of Mexico, these 

seafastenings are designed assuming a relatively short exposure to severe weather. For jackets built in 
52 

remote locations and requiring longer, open ocean tows, the design of the seafastenings can be highly 

complex. Figure 31 shows the Shell Bullwinkle jacket just prior to launch. 

Figure 31. Shell Bullwinkle Jacket Just Prior to Launch (Courtesy of Shell Exploration and Production 

Co.). 

Transportation is frequently one of the highest risk operations undertaken for an offshore structure 

(see the section on Transportation). The fact that most Gulf of Mexico jackets are built on the Gulf Coast 

significantly reduces this risk. Having loaded the jacket onto the barge, and seafastened it, it is ready to 

be towed to site. A jacket won’t be loaded onto the barge until the site is ready to receive it because a 

jacket on a barge is in a vulnerable condition even if it has not left the yard. Because of its size, it is 

extremely difficult to effectively moor a jacket-loaded barge in high winds. If a hurricane were to strike, 

it is very exposed, and salvaging a jacket off a grounded or damaged barge, once the storm surge has 

abated is not simple. 

The barge is then towed out to the site, and, if all is ready, the seafastenings will be cut. The barge is 

then ballasted down at the stern until the jacket launches itself (see Figure 32). Earlier engineering 

analyses will have ensured that the jacket has sufficient buoyancy to float, that it will not dive too deep 

and hit the seafloor, and that all the members are sufficiently strong not to collapse under the hydrostatic 

pressure. Once the jacket has stabilized in the water it will be “up-ended” into the final vertical 

orientation by flooding certain sections, positioned accurately on the design location, rotated to the correct 

alignment, and ballasted onto the seabed. The jacket is now relatively safe, as long as it is not exposed to 

any large waves, which could tip it over before the piles are driven. 
53 

Figure 32. Bullwinkle Jacket during Launch (Courtesy of Shell Exploration and Production Co.). 

On shallow water jackets the piles are normally driven through the center of the individual legs, and 

then welded off above the waterline. On larger jackets this is uneconomic, so the piles are driven, 

underwater, through pile sleeves that are located around the base of the jacket. By using an underwater 

hammer, one does not have all the extra pile steel reaching from the seabed up to the surface. After 

piling, the deck structure is transported out to the jacket, lifted onto the jacket, and welded in place (see 

Figure 33 and Figure 34). Proper planning and execution is critical to keep the offshore work to an 

absolute minimum in order to reduce costs. 

Figure 33. Jacket Deck Arriving on a Barge. 
54 

Figure 34. Lifting a Deck onto Jacket with Two Cranes on 

One Derrick Barge. 

4.10.2. Compliant Tower 

A compliant tower uses many of the same features of a conventional jacket, steel tubular members, 

welded frame construction, etc. However, rather than remaining rigid in the face of environmental forces 

(wind and waves), a compliant tower is built to be flexible, absorbing the energy of the environment by 

deflecting. There are a number of different options for compliant towers. The main distinction is 

between guyed (as in Exxon Lena) and free standing, as in Baldpate and Petronius, but there are 

variations within the freestanding design as well. 

4.10.2.1. Limitations 

The maximum water depth for compliant towers is generally accepted to be approximately 3,000 feet, 

but there is also a minimum (roughly 1,000 feet), below which it is difficult to get a structure that has a 

long enough natural period to achieve compliance. There have been relatively shallow water equivalents 

to the compliant tower (e.g., the Elf Oscillating Tower that was installed in the early 1970’s) but they are 

likely to be of very limited application. 

4.10.2.2. Advantages 

The main advantage of a compliant tower is that it takes relatively conventional jacket structure 

technology and construction techniques and, through careful modification, applies it to deepwater. For 

this reason many of the advantages of jacket structures apply to compliant towers 

• Deep Water Capable. Compliant towers extend the water depth capability of jacket 

type construction to approximately 3,000 feet water depth. 
55 

• Lower Cost. Relative to other deep water options, compliant towers offer an 

inexpensive method of developing the shallower end of the deepwater spectrum 

(1,000 to 3,000 feet). 

• Construction Experience. Construction of most of the tower is similar to that used 

for jackets, is relatively simple, and well understood around the Gulf Coast. Hence 

there are many yards that have the fabrication capability, assuming sufficient space, 

even if they lack the actual compliant tower fabrication experience. 

• Short Transportation. This expensive, high-risk task is short since towers can be 

economically fabricated on the Gulf Coast. 

• Installation Experience. Launch installation is well proven and established 

technology, hence the risks are better known and should be controllable. There is a 

slight increase in risk over a jacket because the compliant tower is narrower and more 

flexible. 

• Deck Installation. As with conventional jackets, the deck can be simply lifted into 

place with few hookup problems. 

• Drilling Flexibility. The structure can normally be easily designed to support the 

installation of a “rig package” to complete the wells, and for workover. 

• Low Tolerances. The deck and jacket can adjust to reasonable lack-of-fit; hence 

construction tolerances do not have to be extremely tight. 

• Robust. The structure is flexible enough to be able to absorb significant collision 

energy without collapsing, as long as the colliding vessel is moving slowly (see 

disadvantages below). 

• Export Pipelines. The cost of export pipelines is significantly lower than on a 

floating platform that uses, for example, steel catenary export risers. 

4.10.2.3. Disadvantages 

The disadvantages of a compliant tower include 

• Production Limits (size and weight). Because the structure depends on maintaining a 

specific range of dynamic characteristics, the size and weight of the deck are limited 

which leads to limits on production equipment and capacity. This also limits future 

expansion so if field flow characteristics have been underestimated during design it 

may be difficult to find the space or weight capacity to expand the facilities. 

• Production Limits (space). The relatively small plan area of the structure limits the 

number of wells that can be produced through the conductor framing, and load 

capacity limits the number and size of remote tie-ins and export risers. 

• Impact Vulnerable. While the structure is capable of absorbing large quantities of 

energy at low speeds, the slow response time means that higher speed impacts could 

cause considerable damage. 

• Repair Costs. As with jackets, underwater repairs are expensive (e.g., some require 

special chambers to allow dry welding) and dangerous, and the structure cannot be 

removed from location and taken to a yard for repairs. 

• Decommissioning. Towers are expensive to decommission and remove from 

location once their useful life has been reached. 
56 

4.10.2.4. Fabrication 

The details of fabrication will be different than those for a conventional jacket, but the overall scheme 

will be very similar – a compliant tower looks like a very tall slender jacket. The tower structure may be 

built in one or more parts (e.g., Baldpate comprised a lower “jacket base section” and an upper “jacket 

tower section”) and these parts may be built in different fabrication yards (as was the case with the 

Baldpate tower). 

The deck section is very similar to that of a conventional jacket, albeit somewhat smaller. 

4.10.2.5. Load-out, Transportation, Installation, and Piling 

The various installation phases are similar to those of a conventional jacket, with a few changes. On 

a guyed compliant tower, a derrick barge will normally install the moorings prior to tower arrival. Once 

the tower is installed, the moorings will be pulled in to the tower and connected. The tower portion of the 

process proceeds much as for a conventional jacket with the pieces loaded onto a barge, towed to site and 

launched, upended and lowered into place. 

The Baldpate tower, which is freestanding, was installed in two major parts, the jacket base section 

(JBS) and the jacket tower section (JTS). The JBS was lowered over two docking piles that ensured the 

correct location (within ± 2 1⁄2 inches of location relative to center well) onto four leveling piles that 

ensured the JBS was sufficiently level (within 1 degree). The JBS was then piled into place. Next, the 

JTS was towed out, lowered and locked to the JBS. This installation procedure minimized the exposure 

of an un-piled structure to damage due to inclement weather. The JBS was deep enough that had a storm 

arisen during installation it would have been relatively safe from wave action. 

There were some differences between the launch of the JTS and a conventional jacket, but they 

involved technicalities of overhang, stability, floating level, etc., not methodology. 

Deck installation was in a single lift, as for many other offshore structures. 

4.10.3. Tension-Leg Platform (TLP) 

Unlike the previously discussed options (jackets and towers) that are pile founded, large steel frames 

made of tubular members, a TLP (see Figure 35) is a watertight, buoyant hull that floats at the surface and 

is connected to the seafloor via tendons, or “tension legs,” that have been attached to driven piles. The 

topsides facilities sit atop this hull, subject only to slight horizontal movements caused by wind, waves 

and currents, and operate much like conventional platform structures. A TLP hull usually consists of four 

columns up to 100 feet in diameter connected by pontoons around the perimeter. 
57 

Figure 35. Ursa TLP after Installation of Deck at Curacao (Courtesy of Shell 

Exploration and Production Co.). 

4.10.3.1. Limitations 

The TLP concept works by keeping the tendons in tension at all times. In other words, the buoyant 

force of the hull must always exceed the forces acting to compress the tendons: wind, wave, tide, ballast 

water, riser load, CG tolerance, and payload effects. The TLP design restricts operations to maintain the 

minimum tension limit state, and there is little ability to increasing payload capacity. In short, the TLP is 

a very weight sensitive structure. The practical TLP water depth ranges from 1,000 feet to 5,000 feet. 

4.10.3.2. Advantages 

The main advantage of a TLP is that the structure can operate in deeper water depths than 

conventional jackets. 

• Construction Ease. Construction is relatively simple, and the engineering is well 

understood around the Gulf Coast, with many yards having extensive experience. 

Hence the potential for cost overruns is very much reduced. 

• Wide Footprint. Unlike some other development options, a TLP has a large internal 

space in which to run risers to the topsides because support columns are moved to the 

perimeter. 

• Mobility. The hull and topsides can be towed to a new location though the tendons 

cannot be reused. 

• Dry Trees. Because of their motion characteristics, TLP’s can use dry trees, as 

opposed to subsea wells, for well completions. 

4.10.3.3. Disadvantages 

The greatest disadvantage of a TLP is the limited water depth in which it can be installed compared to 

other floating options. Other issues include 

• Hull Cost. Because of its size and complexity, a TLP hull is significantly more 

expensive than a mini-TLP or a spar. 
58 

• Foundation. The seafloor piles are more complex than that of other offshore mooring 

systems. 

• Riser Cost. Compared to jackets and towers using traditional riser technology, the 

steel catenary export risers necessary for a TLP are expensive. 

• Tendon Costs. The TLP tendons are relatively unique items, which makes them 

expensive. And they are designed only for the depth at original location so a 

relocated TLP will require new tendons. 

4.10.3.4. Fabrication 

The TLP fabrication consists of separate hull and topsides construction, often at different locations. 

The hull is built from four upright airtight cylinders (columns), up to 100 feet. in diameter, with tendon 

guides at the base corners. These columns are connected by pontoons at their base. Fairly standard steel 

plate construction methods common to shipbuilding are used. 

The tendons are typically 24 inches or more in diameter and comprise 40 percent or more of the hull 

and mooring costs. In conjunction with the tendons there may also be a subsea template fabrication for 

the foundation and for drilling. Foundation templates would include guides for the driving of piles and 

attachments for the tendons. 

Topsides construction is typical of that used for conventional jackets and compliant towers, although 

will often be installed in components on larger TLP’s (see Figure 36). 

Figure 36. Deck Installation on Ursa (Courtesy of Shell Exploration and Production). 

4.10.3.5. Load-out, Transportation, Installation, and Piling 

If templates are used for either drilling or foundation, these will be constructed onshore, loaded onto a 

barge via a crane and towed to the installation site. Depending on the template size, either a MODU or 

heavy lift vessel will be required to lift and lower the templates in place. For foundation templates, piles 

will be driven using an underwater hammer to secure the foundation. An alternative to driving the piles is 

to drill, install and grout the piles in place. This will depend on the pile strength needed, the soil 

conditions and the available equipment. 

If the hull has been constructed near the installation site, it can be towed from the construction yard to 

the location. However, if a longer distance is required (e.g., a TLP hull constructed in Italy) would 

normally be transported “dry” using a heavy lift vessel or large barge (see Figure 37). 
59 

Figure 37. Ursa TLP Dry Towed from Italy (Courtesy of Shell Exploration and Production). 

If the topsides are to be installed before towing the completed platform to site, this will be completed 

at a shore-based facility with adequate lifting capacity. Figure 38 shows a wet tow of Ursa once the 

topside had been installed. Otherwise, both the topsides and hull will be towed separately to the 

installation site and mated on location. Factors affecting this decision are construction locations of the 

hull and topsides, available equipment for towing to site and installing the platform, and budget and time 

restraints. 

Generally, at least some of the tendons will have been attached to the template or piles prior to the 

hull arrival. Those pre-installed tendons will then be attached to the hull prior to installing and attaching 

the remaining tendons, if any. 

Figure 38. Wet Tow of Ursa from Curacao to Site (Courtesy of Shell Exploration and Production 

Co.). 

4.10.4. Mini-TLP 

There are alternatives to the typical TLP design, for instance the MOSES design (minimum offshore 

surface equipment structure), that are known as mini-TLP’s. These alternatives are tension leg platforms, 

but they differ from the larger TLP’s by hull configuration and they have greater weight limitations. A 

mini-TLP (see Figure 39 and Figure 40) has similar production capacity to a spar, but due to equipment 

constraints, less than a full-sized TLP. The practical mini-TLP water depth ranges from 1,000 feet to 

5,000 feet. 
60 

Figure 39. El Paso Prince TLP (Courtesy of MODEC 

Int. LLC). 

Figure 40. Anadarko Operated Marco Polo TLP Owned 

by El Paso & Caldive (Courtesy of MODEC 

Int. LLC). 
61 

4.10.4.1. Limitations 

The main limitation of the mini-TLP is in the total load it is able to support. The mini-TLP cannot 

hold as much production and drilling equipment as a spar or a full-size TLP. 

4.10.4.2. Advantages 

The main advantage of a mini-TLP, just like the full-size TLP, is that the structure can operate in 

deeper water depths than conventional jackets. Additionally, 

• Construction Ease. The construction is relatively simple, and the engineering is well 

understood around the Gulf Coast, with many yards having extensive experience. 

• Cost. The mini-TLP hull is a relatively inexpensive option compared to a spar or a 

full-size TLP. 

• Arrangement. Risers run along the external edge of the hull, allowing for greater 

capacity for production and subsea risers. 

• Dry Trees. Because of their motion characteristics, mini-TLP’s can use dry trees, as 

opposed to subsea wells, for well completions. 

4.10.4.3. Disadvantages 

Unlike a Spar, a mini-TLP’s topsides and hull must be separated before it can be moved to a new 

location. In addition, 

• Tendon Costs. The seafloor piles and the tendon system are more expensive than a 

Spar’s mooring system. 

• Mobility. Though it can be moved to a new location (if the hull and topsides are 

separated) its tendons are designed for a single water depth and cannot be reused. 

• Drilling Capability. Though mini-TLP’s can and do incorporate workover drilling 

capability, full drilling capability is generally not suited to the lower weight 

capability of these systems. 

4.10.4.4. Fabrication 

Like a full-size TLP or a spar, mini-TLP fabrication consists of separate hull and topsides 

construction, often at different locations. The hull is built in quadrants that form a mono-column, leading 

to a submerged base. The base consists of 3 or 4 watertight arms, extending from the base of the monocolumn, forming a “Y” or a cross. These arms provide stability and are used as the connection point for 

the tendons. The main column of a mini-TLP can measure up to 100 feet in diameter and 360 feet in 

length, and the tendons may be up to 24 inches in diameter. In conjunction with the tendons there may 

also be a subsea template fabrication for the foundation. Foundation templates would include guides for 

the driving of piles and attachments for the tendons. 

Like the other deepwater structures, a mini-TLP employs separately built topsides, containing 

multiple decks. These decks are built in stages, with separate modules or “skids,” blocks of production 

equipment, control facilities, crew accommodations, etc. Once all of these blocks are built, they are 

brought to a common location and placed upon the decks according to function. 

4.10.4.5. Load-out, Transportation, Installation, and Piling 

Similar to the full-size TLP, templates may be used for either drilling or foundation and are typically 

installed first. Depending on the distance between the construction site and the installation site, the hull 

will be transported dry (on a heavy lift vessel) or wet using tugs (see Figure 41). The topsides will be 

transported using a heavy lift vessel (unlike a full-size TLP, the option to install the topsides on the hull 

prior to towing to the site is not available for the mini-TLP). 
62 

Figure 41. Morpeth Hull Transportation to Site (Courtesy of Atlantia Offshore Ltd.). 

Generally, at least some of the tendons will have been attached to the template or piles prior to the 

hull arrival. Those pre-installed tendons will then be attached to the hull prior to installing and attaching 

the remaining tendons, if any. Once all the tendons have been secured, the topsides can be lifted in place 

(see Figure 42). 

Figure 42. Lifting Deck of Morpeth into Place (Courtesy of Atlantia 

Offshore Ltd.). 

4.10.5. Spar 

As with most other deepwater options, a spar is a floating system. Similar to the TLP and mini-TLP 

designs, a spar consists of a watertight, buoyant hull supporting the production topsides. However, a spar 

hull is cylindrical, like an upright tube or buoy, connected to the seafloor via heavy, low-tensioned, spread 

mooring lines that radiate from the submerged section of the hull (see Figure 43). There are some 

variations to the basic hull design (e.g., a truss-spar with a lower truss section replacing part of the 
63 

cylindrical hull minimizing the effects of “loop” currents) but the overall concept remains the same (see 

Figure 44). 

Figure 43. Neptune Spar (Courtesy of Kerr-McGee Oil and 

Gas Corp.). 

Figure 44. Three Spar Configurations as Used by Kerr-McGee 

(Courtesy of Kerr-McGee Oil and Gas Corp.). 

4.10.5.1. Limitations 

As with most of the floating development options, strict weight limitations exist. Because the spar 

hull is long and narrow, and uses buoyancy cans for riser tensioning, there is a limited centerwell space 

for risers. The spar also has less equipment capacity than a full-size TLP. Spars can be installed in a 

great range of water depths, up to 10,000 feet. 
64 

4.10.5.2. Advantages 

The greatest advantage of the spar is its range of applicable water depths, which exceed those of most 

other deepwater development options. Other advantages include 

• Production Capacity. The spar has greater equipment and production capacity than a 

mini-TLP. 

• Cost. A spar is generally less expensive than a full-size TLP. 

• Mobility. A spar can be moved in an upright tow position up to approximately 100 

miles to a new location and the mooring system may be reused at depths up to that of 

its original location. 

• Stability. The spar design is inherently stable, as the center of buoyancy is located 

above the center of gravity. 

• Dry Trees. Because of their motion characteristics, spars can use dry trees, as 

opposed to subsea wells, for well completions. 

4.10.5.3. Disadvantages 

Spars are generally more susceptible to heave motion than TLP’s, making hydraulic riser tensioning 

systems necessary. In addition, the deep draft of a spar hull can make the structure subject to loop 

currents and vibration issues, which must be accounted for in design. 

4.10.5.4. Fabrication 

Spar fabrication consists of separate hull and topsides construction, often at different locations. The 

hull is built using a truss, rolled up and covered to form a watertight column. The lower portion of the 

steel truss frame can be constructed and left bare so as to allow stressful currents to flow through. The 

upper hull portions contain the riser buoyancy cans and sealed, watertight ballasts. 

The topsides is typically built using three integrated decks, each consisting of ‘skids.’ Skids are large 

blocks of production or drilling equipment, built in advance and later placed upon the decks and 

connected in accordance with functionality. These skids also contain the crew’s control rooms, office 

space, and living/dining areas. 

4.10.5.5. Load-out, Transportation, Installation, and Piling 

Typically, a drilling rig will pre-drill one or more of the necessary wells, and export pipelines are laid 

and buoyed for later hookup. Prior to installation, a survey is performed to define the mooring lay down 

area and a derrick barge will install the anchor piles using an ROV and a free-riding hydraulic hammer. 

The mooring lines are laid out and connected to a recovery line for later recovery and hull attachment. 

Once the hull is completed, typically in Finland, it is shipped to the Gulf of Mexico on a heavy-lift 

vessel, sometimes in two sections due to weight and size constraints. The hull can be connected and held 

at an onshore GOM location until it is ready to be transported to site. Typically, it can be towed to this 

location using oceangoing tugs. Once in position, the ballast tanks in the hull are filled as necessary, and 

the structure upends (this takes approximately two minutes). Then a derrick barge places a temporary 

work deck on the hull to facilitate utility hook up, mooring line attachment, and riser installation. Tugs 

put the hull in position, the mooring lines are reeled in and attached. 

The topsides are later transported to the site via material barge, and placed onto the hull by a heavy 

lift crane on the derrick barge. Finally, the buoyancy cans are lifted off the material barge and placed into 

the centerwell bay, and ballasted to production deck requirements. 

4.10.6. Converted Semisubmersible 

Semisubmersible platforms are used all over the world as mobile work structures for drilling, lifting 

and other operations. Their hulls are similar to the hull of the TLP in that they are vertical column-based 

floating systems with pontoons (see Figure 45, which shows the Laffit Pincay, a converted semi-
65 

submersible that at the time of the photograph was stacked in Pascagoula, Mississippi). These mobile 

units have been converted to permanently moored platforms as an alternative to some of the other 

relatively deepwater development options. This is advantageous since the hull requires little retrofit and 

with a mooring system and upgraded topsides can relatively quickly and inexpensively be used as a 

production platform. One of the first converted units was the Transworld 58, which was converted and 

used to produce the first oil in the United Kingdom sector of the North Sea from the Hamilton Argyll 

field. PETROBRAS in Brazil operates about 15 semisubmersible production platforms. 

Figure 45. Converted Semisubmersible Laffit Pincay. 

4.10.6.1. Limitations 

Similar to a spar, semisubmersibles have a wide range of practical water depth applicability, up to 

10,000 feet, but most of the semisubmersibles capable of being operated in such a water depth would be 

too expensive to purchase to consider suitable for conversion. The best candidates for conversion are 

older units that have water depth limits of around 2,000 feet. They are only suited to developments with 

subsea completions since their motion properties, and to a certain extent mooring system reliability, make 

them unsuitable for dry trees. 

These limitations do not apply to the purpose built large deep draft semisubmersibles such as is being 

used to develop Thunder Horse for BP in the Gulf of Mexico. 

4.10.6.2. Advantages 

Their suitability to a wide range of water depths and the relatively simple conversion from mobile 

drilling unit to permanently moored facility are two important advantages. Other advantages include 

• Risers. Semisubmersible units can handle a large number of risers compared to other 

development options. 

• Relatively inexpensive if the correct candidate can be found for conversion when the 

market is down. 

• Can be moved easily from one location to another if the wells pay out. 
66 

4.10.6.3. Disadvantages 

The motion characteristics of semi-submersibles make them less stable than TLP’s, and spars, 

although their motions should be significantly better than many converted tankers. Additionally 

• Storage. Semisubmersibles have little if any storage capability. 

• Likely to be very sensitive to weight. There is always a tendency for production 

equipment to get heavier as a project progresses. Weight control when converting a 

semisubmersible is critical. 

• May not be ideally suited to the location, so may have to compromise during the 

conversion. 

• Much of the installed equipment may need to be replaced because it is technically 

obsolete (i.e., it may still be operational, but it does not do what is now required, and 

it may not be possible to get the parts to repair it). 

• May require considerably more conversion than expected. Whenever converting a 

vessel, there are almost always unexpected surprises. These may include unexpected 

corrosion, cracking in critical areas, higher usage of fatigue life than expected, etc. 

4.10.6.4. Fabrication 

Development of a converted semisubmersible platform begins with identifying a suitable drilling unit 

for the conversion. Depending on the existing demand for mobile drilling facilities, this may be a 

difficult task since an operator may be able to make considerably more money from drilling contracts than 

from selling the asset, hence one is often stuck in the position of either having to pay too much, or getting 

a considerably less than optimum unit. Once located, the facility will be taken to a shipyard to be 

converted. This involves outfitting the topsides facilities with the necessary production and processing 

equipment, installing equipment for the mooring system, etc. Any yard capable of constructing or 

servicing semisubmersible drilling units are generally capable of a conversion such as this. 

4.10.6.5. Transportation, Installation, and Anchoring/Piling 

Generally, the completed unit, including topsides, will be towed to the installation site rather than 

towing the hull, installing it and then installing the topsides, which has been transported separately. 

These vessels were designed to be mobile in their life as a drilling unit so this process is normally 

relatively straightforward. Prior to the transportation of the facility, the mooring lines will have been 

installed with either drag anchors or one of the various pile configurations available. The lines will have 

been attached and readied for hookup with the hull when it arrives on station. It may be that the rig’s 

original mooring system can be used, but it would require very careful inspection, and even with this, 

there is a reasonable chance that defects will be missed. Once this has been accomplished, 

commissioning can begin since the topsides are already in place. 

4.10.7. Deep-Draft Semisubmersible 

This deepwater option is similar to a converted semisubmersible platform, but is purpose-built for use 

as a production platform. In most respect its properties are the same as any semisubmersible, but its hull 

design allows deeper draft and greater stability for the overall system. Because they are purpose built, 

they tend not to have some of the disadvantages of a converted semisubmersible, but at a considerably 

higher price. 

4.10.7.1. Limitations 

Similar to a spar, semisubmersibles have a wide range of practical water depth applicability, up to 

10,000 feet. 
67 

4.10.7.2. Advantages 

The deep-draft motion characteristics of these facilities allow the use of dry tree well completions, 

although they do not necessarily use them. The main advantages are 

• can be designed for almost any water depth and load carrying capability required; 

• capable of huge deck and very large process capacity; 

• can handle large number of wells; 

• large deck area; 

• can store crude in the lower hull (although this would not normally be used for 

export, simply to back-flush the flow lines before or after a shutdown; and 

• can choose a range of construction materials (there are some concrete 

semisubmersible production units). 

4.10.7.3. Disadvantages 

Although a semi-submersible can be designed for the required load capability, weight growth during 

fabrication can still be a problem, as with any floating installation. Other disadvantages include the 

following: 

• Cost will likely be expensive. 

• Best suited for very large developments where other options are not as attractive. 

• Mooring system is likely to be expensive, and may require the use of new materials 

(e.g., polyester) that are very expensive, and have not had the extent of field testing 

as conventional wire and chain. 

• Need to use a shipyard that understands building a vessel with all the concomitant 

ballast and weight control systems. 

• Transportation may be complicated for large units. 

4.10.7.4. Fabrication 

Fabrication of deep-draft semisubmersibles needs to be undertaken at a proper shipyard that knows 

how to build marine equipment. This is not necessarily a serious limitation, but few facilities around the 

Gulf Coast have the experience of facility size to build a large, deep-draft semisubmersible. 

4.10.7.5. Load-out, Transportation, Installation, and Piling 

Transportation may be a significant issue. Most deep draft semisubmersibles will be large, or an 

alternative option will have been used. But there are limits to the size of cargo that can be carried on 

either a barge or self propelled ship. One does not want to be in the position that there is only one vessel 

that is capable of transporting the unit: the costs will likely be very high, and there is no back-up should 

the ship/barge sink. To a certain extent, the same applies to the installation: everything will be big, so 

will take a long time and use expensive equipment. If using polyester line, and one mooring line is 

dropped, then is there a replacement available to complete the installation. Likely there will not be, 

unless such an eventuality has been built into the project, thereby again increasing the costs. 

4.10.8. Floating Production, Storage, and Offloading System (FPSO) 

An FPSO is a vessel with the capabilities inherent in its name: production, storage, and offloading of 

oil and gas. While there are an increasing number of purpose-built FPSO’s, the majority of facilities in 

use today are converted tankers that have been modified to execute these functions in deepwater 

environments. 
68 

A tanker-based FPSO usually has a length of approximately 1,000 feet and a breadth of 200 feet (see 

Figure 46). The conversion requires installation of a mooring system (often using a turret placed in the 

forward section of the vessel near the bow) and production facilities on the ship’s main deck. Unless the 

FPSO is moored in a relatively benign environment, a turret is used to anchor the vessel to the mooring 

system while allowing the vessel to pivot according to the prevailing weather (i.e., weathervane). 

Production risers are also run through the turret system. If a turret is not required, a spread mooring 

system is installed with mooring lines attached directly to anchor points on the vessel’s deck, typically at 

the fore and aft ends of the vessel. 

Besides choosing between spread moored and turret moored systems, there are two other options for 

an FPSO mooring system: fixed and disconnectable. The majority of FPSO’s employ a fixed mooring 

design which is intended to keep the vessel on station for the duration of its life at that location. In some 

instances, it is desirable to have the ability to move the vessel off station during its service life (e.g., to 

avoid icebergs), and this requires a disconnectable mooring system allowing the vessel to leave its 

mooring lines behind, move off station, and then return and reconnect the mooring lines. 

Figure 46. Pemex Ta’Kuntah FSO (Courtesy of MODEC Int. 

LLC). 

A few of the more modern designs use dynamic positioning (DP), a system of thrusters in concert 

with global positioning systems or a similar technology to hold to a precise position. The DP enabled 

FPSO’s still require a mooring system to maintain the vessel on station with the DP system providing 

minute corrections. 

4.10.8.1. Limitations 

Unlike other production facility options, an FPSO does not make use of export pipelines to direct its 

production to shore or to other facilities. An FPSO depends on shuttle tankers to allow it to offload 

produced oil from its storage tanks (see Figure 47). If shuttle tankers are unavailable for whatever reason 

and the FPSO storage tanks are full, production must stop until its tanks can be offloaded. 
69 

Figure 47. Pemex Ta’Kuntah FSO Simultaneous Offloading (Courtesy of 

MODEC Int. LLC). 

4.10.8.2. Advantages 

The primary advantage of an FPSO is its suitability to a wide range of water depths. Though most of 

the units have been installed in water depths less than 3,000 feet, they have also been successfully 

employed in greater depths, such as in Petrobras’ Marlin Sul Field (about 4,700 feet water depth). Other 

advantages include the following: 

• Weight Insensitive. Compared to its other deepwater floating counterparts, an FPSO 

is not particularly sensitive to the weight of its production equipment. 

• Infrastructure Free. The FPSO’s need not be installed in areas with existing 

infrastructure since they don’t depend on export pipelines. 

• Hull Experience. Because even new-build FPSO’s rely on a typical ship-shaped hull, 

there is a large depth of experience with fabrication around the world. 

• Storage Capacity. The FPSO’s, by design, can carry significant volumes of produced 

oil in its storage tanks, much more than other deepwater options. 

• Deck Space. Unlike other deepwater facilities, there is a large deck area to use for 

production trains. This allows greater expansion options and reduces the risk of 

vapor cloud explosions since equipment is more spread out. 

• Mobility. It is possible to relocate an FPSO, even great distances since its typical 

ship shape makes it suitable for open ocean transport. 

4.10.8.3. Disadvantages 

The primary disadvantage for an FPSO is the significant inspection costs particularly associated with 

the storage tanks. Unlike other deepwater systems, the main structural system is also used to store 

produced oil and ballast water. Cleaning and inspecting the tanks is expensive and dangerous and 

impacts production operations, but is vital to maintaining the facility. 

4.10.8.4. Fabrication 

Whether the FPSO is a new build or a conversion, the hull work will be completed in a shipyard and 

follow the path very similar to that of a tanker fabrication. For a conversion, the primary hull work will 

involve replacing existing steelwork that has corroded or become damaged, reinforcing support points for 

topsides equipment, and installing a turret or other mooring attachment structures. If a turret mooring 

system is used, the turret will be either delivered from the fabricator as a unit to be installed or will be 

fabricated by the shipyard depending on the contract arrangements. 
70 

The topsides equipment and supports are installed in the shipyard. A process deck is installed on top 

of the ship main deck to provide clearance (typically about 10 feet) and to protect the process from wave 

impact in high seas. All the equipment, piping, etc. will be installed and readied before the unit is taken 

to the installation site. 

4.10.8.5. Load-out, Transportation, Installation, and Piling 

Whether spread moored, or turret moored, the mooring lines (composed of wire rope, chain, 

connectors and anchors) will be installed before the arrival of the FPSO unit. The anchors will be set in 

their proper location with the attached mooring lines and readied for retrieval. 

As with any ship-shaped vessel, the unit will be launched from the shipyard. No lifting, upending, 

flooding, etc. are required as with most other floating production options since this behaves much like an 

ocean-going ship. However, the FPSO will typically not have the ability to move on its own (though 

some are equipped with dynamic positioning systems). They require tugs to tow them from the 

fabrication yard to the site. Once the unit is towed to the installation site, the mooring lines are retrieved 

and attached to the turret or the deck mounted anchor points. 

4.10.9. Subsea Tieback 

This is the most basic development option and is used in conjunction with some other deepwater 

development option (e.g., TLP or spar) or a shallower water host platform. A subsea system is a minimal 

structure that houses a variety of equipment (e.g., wellheads and manifolds) at the seafloor. It is designed 

strictly to protect the wells and direct their flow to other locations. 

4.10.9.1. Limitations 

Subsea tiebacks require some other production facility to receive its flow and process it. They cannot 

process the product and must be maintained remotely. 

4.10.9.2. Advantages 

The primary advantage of subsea systems is their relatively low cost (compared to installing a 

complete production platform) that allows them to access reserves that could not be economically 

exploited otherwise. 

4.10.9.3. Disadvantages 

Unlike some of the other deepwater development options, any well maintenance must be handled 

using a MODU or other drilling vessel. This leaves them subject to the prevailing rates and availability of 

such equipment. 

4.10.9.4. Fabrication 

Often, a subsea system will make use of a template. The template is essentially a steel frame that is 

used to house the subsea production equipment and may serve as a drilling guide. If used, the template is 

fabricated in an onshore facility and equipped appropriately. All the equipment, manifolds, production 

trees, piping, etc., is usually sourced from various manufacturers. Often the specifications of this 

equipment are customized to suit the particular needs of the project rather than use “stock” items. 

4.10.9.5. Load-out, Transportation, Installation, and Piling 

If a template is to be used for the system and it is needed as a drilling guide, it will be taken to the site 

and lowered to the seabed with some type of lift vessel. Typically, the template is piled in place using 

either driven or grouted piles. 

With or without the template, drilling takes place using a drillship or semisubmersible. The 

wellheads, templates, flowlines, etc. are installed to complete the wells and tie back the production to a 

host facility. 
71 

4.11. FINANCING

The type of financing method used is subject to significant variation based on many factors including 

oil company size, cost of development, novelty of development, who the partners are, availability of cash, 

etc. The following section briefly discusses the most commonly used options, but it must be realized that 

new financing methods are being developed continually: some may be variations of existing methods, 

some completely new. In addition, there have been some relatively recent changes in the way partnering 

works. In the past it was normal for two or more oil companies to cooperate to explore and develop a 

specific field. Now, although with some limited success, some of the larger drilling contractors are 

becoming partners in a field by helping with the exploration costs, while others have subsidiaries that are 

acting in some respects as independent oil companies. 

Not all the partners involved with a development will use the same method of financing, and the 

method may change during the project, or after installation. It is normal for all parties to have an 

agreement as to how the moneys are to be raised so that all liabilities are known by all parties. 

4.11.1. Company Cash 

The simplest method by which an oil company might develop a field is with cash that they have on 

hand, or is generated by profits as needed. This is an eminently suitable method for relatively 

inexpensive developments, but is not normally viable for smaller companies, or large deepwater projects. 

Through partnering the costs of some high value projects can be brought within the reach of smaller 

companies. Examples of company cash deals include Shell’s commitment in Ursa (45% working interest 

of $1.45 billion) or British Borneo’s commitment to a shallow water installation ($500,000). This is not 

meant to imply that Shell could immediately come up with the cash for such a project, but planned over 

time, they could meet the required draws on funds. 

4.11.2. Stock Issues 

Another way to raise money to finance a major project is through stock issues. As an example, 

British Borneo raised U.K. £54 million (about $80 million) in early 1996 and an additional U.K. £167 

million (about $270 million) in July 1997 through rights issues. This money was to help fund their 

expansion into such projects as Morpeth and Allegheny, although there were other expansions going on at 

the same time. This method is particularly useful to smaller companies whose stock prices are increasing. 

This is not normally a project specific way of raising funds. 

4.11.3. Bond Issues 

Companies can issue bonds as a way of raising money to pay for major projects. None of the projects 

studied for this paper used bond issues as a way of raising funds. 

4.11.4. Bank Loans 

One or all of the partners approach a bank, or consortium of banks to finance a project, somewhat 

akin to taking out a mortgage. Morpeth was partially funded by bank loans. The bank will normally 

insist that there is an independent engineer’s “due diligence” study undertaken to verify the feasibility of 

the venture. Assuming nothing untoward is found, the lead bank will find additional partners to help fund 

the project. The details of the loans, and required guarantees vary from case to case. Some structures, 

like a spar or a TLP, have a potential for reuse after the field has paid out, so the bank has a real collateral 

interest in the structure as well as the field. In the case of a jacket-based structure, the collateral is more 

in the field than in the structure as the potential for reuse is extremely limited. Consequently, the thrust of 

the due diligence study may change depending on the type of structure being financed. 

4.11.5. Sale-Leaseback 

In a sale-leaseback the oil company finances the particular venture through other means, but at some 

stage after completion of the project, sells it to a third party, and leases it back. This releases capital to 

fund another project and is particularly useful for companies that are expanding relatively slowly, and 

want to finance a limited number of projects at a time. Additionally, the cost of money influences the 
72 

attractiveness of a sale-leaseback deal. Because of U.S. tax laws, it is cheaper to effectively borrow 

money via a sale-leaseback than through conventional means. 

A sale-leaseback arrangement can also be valuable for projects that use relatively new technology. 

Sometimes these projects are difficult to fund through conventional loans because the banks perceive 

them as increased risk, and even if they will finance them, the rate may be high. To help offset this, the 

project is funded by other means, and once it has proved itself in operation, it can be easier to find a 

prospective purchaser to undertake a sale-leaseback. This purchaser will not normally be a bank, but 

some structured finance corporation. 

The terms of the sale-leaseback vary depending on the circumstances, but normally the value of the 

installation is paid off, plus some effective interest, over the period of the leaseback. At the end of the 

period the structure must have some value within a specific range, for tax purposes. The lessee then has 

the option to either buy the structure back at some agreed value, normally determined by an independent 

appraiser, or to renew the lease. As an example, Philip Morris owns a number of offshore installations 

that are leased back to their operators. 

It is possible for a company to raise funds through a sale-leaseback of their interest in a field, without 

them being the sole owner. Amerada Hess’s interest in Baldpate is an example of this. 

4.11.6. Hedging 

Hedging is a method of protecting revenue by agreeing to sell a percentage of output at a specific rate, 

regardless of what happens to the world price. By protecting the sale price, hedging ensures cash flow to 

pay off incurred debt. For example, British Borneo hedged by selling a percentage of its production from 

Morpeth at a rate of approximately $16 per barrel. As it happened, the price of oil increased sharply 

during the hedging period, so the company missed out on a significant amount of income, however, they 

protected themselves from a potential drop in prices. 

An alternative to selling a percentage of production is to sell a fixed quantity at a specified price. 

This works as long as the price does not rise and production does not fall to below the agreed quantity to 

be supplied. In this situation, the company that hedged is required to buy oil at a high price and sell it at 

the hedging price in order to meet their commitment. Clearly this can potentially lead to very large 

losses. 

4.12. PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING

In many cases there will be significant preliminary engineering at the decision to develop stage. The 

economics of the project will depend on the cost of development, and these will, in turn, depend on the 

preliminary engineering. In other cases, there will have been less detailed work at the earlier stage, and 

additional preliminary engineering will be needed to ensure technical feasibility prior to advancing. If 

this is the case, the purpose of the preliminary engineering is to generate sufficient information to allow 

the detail design to be put out to bid. 

It is possible that preliminary engineering at this stage will be an extension of some of the concept 

assessments undertaken earlier in the project, but frequently non-design companies will be used for the 

concept assessment in order to prevent any conflicts. The amount of preliminary engineering, and who 

undertakes the work, will often depend on the type of bid sought, and how the project is planned to 

progress. Sometimes the oil company may undertake the work themselves. Conversely, the work may be 

undertaken as a steady refinement of a plan, allowing a stop at any point without too significant an 

expenditure. 

4.13. MODEL TESTING

Floating structures move with the seas, and it is important for the safe and efficient operation of an 

installation to know how much it will move. There are computer programs that can predict vessel 

motions in a sea state, but these do not necessarily work particularly well with non-ship-shaped objects. 

They can be good at predicting the effects of changes in certain parameters, but normally need to be 

calibrated to a “base case.” In addition, there is a need to know what the loads will be resisted by the 

moorings or tendons, and if they will vibrate at any unexpected frequencies. These loads can be 

complicated and influenced by the low frequency response of the moored object. The best way to 

answers these questions is through model tests. 
73 

A model of the structure is made at as large a scale as practical, normally in excess of 1 to 100. 

Figure 48 shows a model of a mini-TLP being tested in a wave basin. The model will include tendons 

(for a TLP) or moorings (for a spar or semisubmersible) that accurately represent their properties. The 

model will then be placed into a model basin that is capable of generating waves and currents. The tank 

where tests were undertaken on Ursa, Neptune, and Morpeth, located at Texas A&M University, is 150 

feet long, 100 feet wide, and 20 feet deep, with a deeper pit of 55 feet. The cost of the tests varies 

depending on modeling detail, number of parameters considered, etc., but were in the range of $200,000. 

Figure 48. Model of a Mini-TLP being Model Tested in a Wave Basin 

(Courtesy of Atlantia Offshore Ltd.). 

4.14. DETAIL ENGINEERING

If a concept has been decided upon in some detail prior to bidding, then there may be a separate 

contract for detailed engineering. For example, Hudson Engineering (part of McDermott) did the detail 

engineering on the Baldpate compliant tower although they did not win all of the construction bids. In 

other cases, the oil company may put the concept out for bid, to include design and fabrication. 

4.15. BIDDING OPTIONS

There is a broad range of bidding options for the oil company, from complete project turnkey to a 

detailed managed project. Some of these possibilities are discussed below. 

4.15.1. Whole Project Turnkey 

Turnkey contracts are common in shallow water, and occasionally in deep water. The oil company 

puts out a bid request for a structure capable of producing specific field characteristics. They may give 

some specifications for the type of structure (frequently this is implied by whom they request to bid) or 

may leave it very open. It is significantly less common in deep water because few companies are capable 

of undertaking such a project from either the risk or technical standpoint. 

4.15.2. Major Packages 

This is probably the most common type of contract in deep water. The operator gives a number of 

major turnkey or cost plus packages. A common split is Hull, Topside Design, Topside Fabrication, 

Pipelines, and Installation. The operator administers each package, although they may designate a 

specific company to act as liaison to ensure that weight and dimensional controls are maintained. The 

individual packages may be either fixed price or cost plus based on an estimate. On fast track projects the 

operator may order some of the major components, which require a longer lead time, in advance in order 
74 

to prevent delays. They may also split out other items that they want to control more strictly, either based 

on past experience, or because of known quality issues. 

4.15.3. Cost Plus 

The Morpeth mini-TLP structure was let as two contracts, one for installation, and the other for the 

completed SeaStar mini-TLP. This was a risky move by British Borneo. In the past they had worked 

with Atlantia on a number of shallow water turnkey contracts in which minimal platforms were installed. 

When they decided to move into deepwater, they formed an alliance with Atlantia to develop the SeaStar 

design from concept to a reality. After various original cost estimates, Atlantia was contracted on a cost 

plus basis to fabricate a SeaStar mini-TLP. Some of the original cost estimates were low, but the main 

reason for these underestimates was that the size of the TLP kept growing along with the required 

production equipment. This was a case of a cost plus contract based on past experience, confidence in the 

product, and reasonable expectations of a well managed project. 

Notwithstanding Morpeth, it is unusual to have cost plus contracts because of the uncertainty of the 

final cost, and the high potential for cost overruns. These types of contracts are most common on timecritical projects, which are let before the design has been finalized, hence the details of scope are not 

known. These projects are hardest to control, and hence cost overruns most likely. 

4.16. CONTRACTORS

Price is very important in choosing a contractor, but it is rarely the only consideration. Clearly there 

is the question of experience, capability, and other factors as discussed below. 

4.16.1. Schedule 

Schedule is extremely important on deepwater projects. Given the magnitude of the investments, 

considerable money can be spent on interest alone before production starts, and any delay can alter how a 

company performs financially in any given year. When considering a contractor it is important not only 

to ensure that they can meet the schedule, but that they can compensate for any delays that may occur. As 

an example, a specific yard may be capable of building a structure on schedule with its normal labor 

force, but delays may require an increased labor force to “make up time” that may either be unavailable in 

the local labor market or be unworkable if the yard does not have sufficient infrastructure to support more 

workers. It is not that the yard cannot meet the schedule, but they have no ability to compensate for 

delays that are outside their control. 

4.16.2. Project Management 

It is critical that the chosen yard has excellent project management skills. This extends into the areas 

of material traceability, weight control, scheduling, etc. Without these basics, a simple project can be 

brought to a halt. 

4.16.3. Labor Force 

There are obviously the issues discussed above about having sufficient available labor to compensate 

for delays, but the stability of the labor force must also be considered. Does the yard have a dedicated 

labor force supplemented as needed? If the yard is unionized, are all the relevant contracts in place for 

the duration of the required fabrication period? Could changes in government affect the labor force? If 

so, how stable is that government? 

4.16.4. Material Supply 

It can be difficult to get certain materials in some yards, particularly on short notice. European 

designs will often use materials that are not readily available in the U.S., and vice versa. To compound 

the problem, steel specifications change from country to country, and it can be difficult to get an exact 

match. This can lead to additional work in verifying compatibility. If only metric materials are available 

for an imperial designed structure, there may be an increase in weight because of the need to compensate 
75 

for plate sizes. Since weight control is extremely important on most deepwater structures, this can lead to 

serious problems later on. These issues are not insurmountable, but need to be considered. 

4.16.5. Transportation 

Transportation is one of the highest risk operations. There have been a large number of structures lost 

over the years due to problems in transportation: recently one of the Mighty Servant semisubmersible 

transport ships sank with a high value deck as cargo. It was due for installation by Chevron in West 

Africa. These vessels are considered a “safe” means of transportation, but the delays due to the loss of 

that deck will have cost Chevron millions of dollars. Closer is not necessarily better, but as a general rule 

it is safer. 

4.16.6. Safety Systems 

A fabrication yard’s safety policy and procedures can significantly affect their suitability, particularly 

when it comes to the oil company’s field surveyors. 

4.16.7. Weather 

The weather can affect the ability of a yard to meet specifications, and to complete work. If the yard 

has enclosed facilities for fabrication, then they are less affected by the weather, but high humidity can 

have a serious impact on the ability to produce high quality welds, and high quality painting. There is 

also the risk of hurricanes or other storm events causing delays in schedule and damage to the facility. 

4.17. QUALITY CONTROL

There are a number of different groups involved with the quality control on a deepwater development 

project. These all have the same basic aim, but with different emphasis. The fabrication yard wants to 

produce a quality product, but for the minimum cost (assuming lump sum pricing). They will have 

specifications that establish how much non-destructive testing (NDT) they do on welds, the tolerance on 

construction, the types of materials, the methods for ensuring that correct materials are used in the right 

places, etc. They need to produce a quality product to protect their name, and encourage future work, but 

they also need to keep costs down. The fabrication certified verification agent (CVA) will be doing a 

similar task, but with the aim of ensuring the project meets a set of standards acceptable to the appropriate 

regulatory agency. The owner’s representative will want to get the best quality product achievable from 

the yard, however they are not necessarily tied to the specifications. They have the option to interpret the 

specifications, and decide that certain things outside the specification may be acceptable (i.e., they are 

allowed judgment). If there is a classification society surveyor involved (e.g., if the vessel is to be 

classed) then they will be ensuring that the structure is built to their own rules. 

4.18. TRANSPORTATION

As mentioned in previous sections, transportation activities are some of the riskiest tasks undertaken 

as part of an offshore development, and the deeper the water the higher the risk. This is in part due to the 

unpredictability of weather conditions (especially in open ocean) but also due to the lack of control and 

recovery available should something go wrong. At sea, there are few options available if serious 

problems arise and the entire load (costing millions of dollars and months of work) can be lost. 

However, with proper planning and execution, transportation of platforms, topsides and equipment 

can and is successfully undertaken. Transportation is typically discussed in terms of dry and wet. A dry 

tow involves a vessel large enough to transport the cargo entirely out of the water while a wet tow is 

performed with the cargo (e.g., a spar hull) in the water pulled by tugs. 

Depending on the size of the cargo and the distance to be traveled, there are many transportation 

options. An ocean transport of significant size will require a heavy lift vessel to transport it. A smaller 

cargo over a shorter distance may only require an ocean going barge pulled by tugs (see Figure 49). In 

any case, proper seafastenings are required, planning of the route and coordination among the crew to 

handle the operation. 
76 

Figure 49. Shallow Water Gulf of Mexico Jacket under Tow in Bayous. 

4.19. ASSEMBLY

Like transportation operations, assemblies on site are also risky. While the likelihood of an error 

occurring may be low, the consequences of a problem can be quite high from a safety and operational 

standpoint. But, as with any activity, proper planning and execution can overcome the obstacles. 

The most common assembly activities on site include topsides installation, riser hookup, mooring or 

tendon attachment, and pile driving. Most of these activities require a vessel with lift capability. The 

availability and cost of such a piece of equipment will depend on the size of the load and its location. 

Based on the development option considered, these factors will have been taken into account at the 

planning stage. 

4.20. INSTALLATION

Listed and described below are some of the physical components necessary for a given offshore 

development installation. 

4.20.1. Template 

A template is a fabricated structure, typically rectangular in shape, that houses subsea equipment such 

as trees, manifolds, and pigging and may also provide guides for drilling. The template sits on the sea 

floor and can range from 10 to 150 feet in length, 10 to 70 feet wide, and 5 to 30 feet high, depending on 

the range and the amount of equipment it houses. Templates that provide the capability of linking several 

wells in a building block fashion are known as “Host Templates.” 

4.20.2. Tendons 

The TLP’s use tendons to secure their buoyant hulls to the seafloor. They are attached to the seafloor 

using concrete or steel piles, which are driven into or grouted to the seafloor. Each of these piles can be 

as large as 10 feet in diameter and 400 feet long. One disadvantage to this type of mooring is that the 

tendons for a TLP are designed for a specific depth (i.e., they cannot be reused at other locations requiring 

different depths) and are relatively expensive compared to other mooring systems. 
77 

4.20.3. Tendon Connectors 

Tendon connectors are specially designed hardware used to attach the tendons to the anchor points at 

the sea floor and at the hull. 

4.20.4. Jacket 

As described in more detail in the sections on conventional jackets and compliant towers, a jacket is a 

welded steel frame made of tubular steel members which is almost completely submerged and supports 

the topsides structure and equipment as well as protecting the conductors and risers. Jackets are primarily 

pile founded though there are also gravity base structures that rest on the sea floor and are stabilized by 

their own weight. Jackets are typically four and eight leg structures though six and three leg alternatives 

are not uncommon. 

4.20.5. Deck 

The deck is the above-water structure of any offshore development platform. Like a jacket, it is a 

welded steel frame with a mix of tubular members and other structural shapes. Typically, decks are built 

with several (two or more) vertical levels to support various equipment packages. The arrangement and 

orientation of the deck will depend on the production requirements and the supporting structure (e.g., 

jacket, TLP, spar, etc.). 

4.20.6. Moorings 

Moorings as found on semisubmersibles, spars and FPSO’s are different from tendons used for 

TLP’s. Moorings do not run vertically from hull to seabed, but typically radiate away from the structure 

for some distance. Moorings are usually composed of heavy chain and wire rope and are anchored in a 

variety of ways (e.g., drag anchors, driven piles, grouted piles, suction piles, etc.). Moorings are less 

expensive than tendons since they are not such a specialized piece of equipment. 

4.20.7. Pipelines 

Pipelines allow production from wells to be directed to platforms, hubs, terminals, etc. Unless shuttle 

tankers will be used exclusively to transport the hydrocarbons from the field, every offshore installation 

requires some sort of pipeline connection to another facility. Just as with onshore pipelines, offshore lines 

are steel tubular members of various sizes and carry oil, gas or a mixture from one location to another. 

Pipelines typically refer to only that portion of the flowline that rests on the seafloor, as opposed to risers, 

which are discussed below. 

4.20.8. Risers 

A riser is the portion of a flowline that runs from the pipeline on the seafloor up to the platform 

production area. For a jacket installation, risers are run along the outer face of the steel frame and 

supported at intervals with clamps. For deepwater installations, special types of risers are used due to the 

long distances they travel. Steel catenary risers are one type of special riser used in deepwater 

installations. Spars typically require risers with special buoyancy cans at the top in order to support their 

weight. Whatever system is used, risers are part of the flow of hydrocarbons from one installation to 

another. 

4.20.9. Subsea Wells 

Subsea wells have their wellheads at the seafloor (either as part of a subsea template or alone) as 

opposed to dry wellheads that sit above the water on platforms. For wells away from the production 

facility that cannot be reached by directional drilling, subsea wells are the only way to produce the 

hydrocarbons. 
78 

4.21. COMMISSIONING

Commissioning is the process of completing and testing the installation and function of the operations 

side of the facility—as opposed to its structural side. 

4.21.1. Topsides 

Once the facilities have been transported to site and installation is complete, the commissioning 

process begins. All the production and processing facilities must be hooked up and tested to assure their 

proper function. Transportation and installation are considered in their design, but these activities may 

cause problems with these systems, e.g., fittings that have worked loose, supports that have been 

damaged, etc. Addressing these issues is part of the commissioning that must take place before the 

facility becomes operational. 

4.21.2. Pipelines 

As discussed in earlier sections, pipelines are the primary means of transporting produced 

hydrocarbons from wells to the platform and from the platform to other facilities (either offshore hubs or 

onshore terminals). Whether installed prior to the facility installation or after its arrival, the pipelines 

must be commissioned just as the topsides facilities. Connections to risers must be completed and 

functionality tests run. This may involve the use of “pigs,” which are run through the lines to determine 

its fitness. 

4.21.3. Risers 

Risers connect the topsides production facilities with the pipelines at the sea floor. Like pipelines, the 

risers must be connected and tested after installation of the facility to allow production to begin. 

Depending on the development option used, some risers may be preinstalled with the structure to facilitate 

this commissioning process. Otherwise, the risers must be installed on site once the facility is in place. 

4.22. DEVELOPMENT DRILLING

Earlier in this document, exploratory drilling was discussed as a method of defining, in greater detail, 

the production prospects of a field. Development drilling is the more involved process of drilling the 

production wells for the field. Depending on the development option chosen, the development drilling 

activities will be accomplished from the platform itself, or using a mobile offshore drilling unit or drill 

ship. Platforms, compliant towers, TLP’s, mini-TLP’s, spars and deep-draft semisubmersibles are 

capable of having dry tree wells with drilling operations taking place from the topsides. Other 

development options require a drilling vessel to drill and complete the wells. 

If drilling is to be completed using a drilling vessel, these wells may be completed before the 

installation of the facility. All commissioning activities must be coordinated with the development 

drilling activities since both activities must be accomplished before production can begin on a facility. 

4.23. OPERATIONS

While the earlier stages of the development chronology are important to a project’s success, the 

operations are the money producing activities that last from first oil until decommissioning. Successful 

and efficient operations are key to the profitable development of a field. These operations encompass a 

wide range of activities from drilling, production and processing to maintenance, repairs and upgrades. 

4.23.1. Production and Processing 

Ensuring the regular flow of hydrocarbons from the wells and processing the production so it can be 

transferred to other facilities is the primary function of the platform operations. Production activities 

include water and gas injection for those wells that are not free flowing, flow assurance activities such as 

flowline maintenance, etc. Processing primarily involves separation of the production into water, oil and 

gas, compression of gas production to facilitate transport, re-injection of produced water, etc. 
79 

4.23.2. Well Maintenance 

If the development option allows it, well maintenance may be performed from the production facility. 

This activity must be coordinated carefully with the ongoing production activities since some drilling and 

production activities should not be performed at the same time due to the risk to personnel and equipment. 

Fewer limitations exist when the well maintenance activities occur from a drill vessel, which would be the 

case for remote wells, or development options that don’t support drilling activities. 

4.23.3. Maintenance and Inspection 

In order to keep the facility operating efficiently and effectively, a comprehensive maintenance and 

inspection program is necessary. These activities should be focused on proactively addressing 

maintenance needs to minimize the need for repairs and replacements. Inspections are an important part 

of this process and include both above and below water visual and non-destructive testing techniques. 

4.23.4. Supply Boats 

The most efficient method of delivery the large amounts of consumables and other supplies needed by 

a large offshore development platform is through the use of supply boats. The increasing need for more 

capable vessels to service deepwater facilities has led to improvements in the supply boats themselves and 

the crews that operate them. This has been made possible, in part, by the long-term contracts given to 

supply operators allowing them the revenue stream to invest in assets and training. Improvements include 

more reliable better maintained vessels, more use of dynamic positioning systems, larger and better 

trained crews, and greater cargo capacity (see Figure 50). 

Figure 50. Supply Vessel Amy Chouest at Dock. 

4.23.5. Crew Changes 

Deepwater development operations involve fairly large crews (50 persons or more). Because of the 

logistical challenges and the size of the crews, crew changes are minimized as much as possible by 

extending the shifts served by each crewmember. Helicopters are the primary method of facilitating crew 

changes for deepwater operations because they offer greater speed and flexibility than crew boats. 

5. SHALLOW WATER VS. DEEPWATER 

Based on the different economic, technological, operational and safety factors involved in offshore 

operations, there are significant differences between how a shallow water facility and a deepwater facility 

are planned, built, installed and operated. This section addresses the differences seen in specific areas of 

an offshore development when operating in shallow water versus deepwater. 
80 

5.1. MANNING

The driving factors behind manning levels in shallow water versus deepwater are distance and 

production. Because many shallow water platforms are close to shore, they can economically be manned 

during the day only, with crews coming aboard via helicopter or even supply boats. The distances 

required to reach deepwater platforms make this kind of partial manning impractical both from a cost and 

an operational standpoint. 

Production is the overriding factor determining manning requirements. Many shallow water 

platforms have no processing capacity at all, or minimal capacity and act merely as well protectors with 

the production redirected to hub platforms or to shore-based facilities. There is no need for a crew on 

these facilities and they are typically only visited for maintenance purposes. On a deepwater facility this 

is never the case. In order to be feasible economically, the production rates must be high and there must 

be processing capability to handle the hydrocarbons. This requires manning on a 24-hour basis with a 

significant crew size (e.g., 50 or more). Additionally, more maintenance is required for the significantly 

larger and more complex facilities found in deepwater compared to shallow water structures. This also 

requires a dedicated work force. 

5.2. SUBSEA

Subsea systems (e.g., wellheads, manifolds, etc.) are useful for producing wells that can’t be reached 

by more conventional methods. However, they add more complexity to the process of installation, 

production and maintenance, and this increased complexity brings increased cost. The typical shallow 

water production in the Gulf of Mexico does not generate enough return to offset this increased cost, so 

subsea systems are less attractive in this environment. 

For deepwater production, the greater production levels make the use of subsea more economical. It 

may be relatively straightforward to install a minimal structure (e.g., a caisson or well protector) in 

shallow water to develop a field not accessible from existing infrastructure. But in deepwater, the subsea 

systems are the only minimal structures available. The cost of a new development structure for deepwater 

may not be justified by the potential production, but a subsea system could be installed at much lower 

cost and tied back to an existing facility. 

5.3. PIPELINES AND GAS

The primary means of directing production from offshore facilities to onshore facilities is through the 

use of pipelines. Every potential field development must consider the availability and suitability of 

pipelines to handle the produced hydrocarbons. 

For shallow water developments, there is a network of pipelines available that has been installed over 

the more than 40 years of Gulf of Mexico production. If the company does not own their own pipelines, 

fees can be paid to the owners for their use in what have become fairly standard arrangements. Typically, 

only a short pipeline is required in order to tie the new production into the existing network. While any 

pipeline work is costly and requires specialized equipment, it is a fairly straightforward process and can 

be completed by a number of contractors. 

Deepwater developments are no different in their need to transport their product, but their options are 

more limited and more costly. There are far fewer deepwater developments compared to shallow water, 

and the existing network of pipelines that serve them is smaller and more spread out. In order to tie into 

this network, or create a new path to a hub platform in more shallow water is costly in terms of time, 

materials and equipment. 

Besides the cost differences between deepwater and shallow water pipeline systems, there are other 

considerations somewhat unique to deepwater operating environments. Hydrostatic pressure, 

temperature, and material weight are important considerations. The system design must address the large 

pressures that can crush the material. Temperatures in deepwater environments can cause flow 

restrictions inside the pipelines. And the large volume of materials required to connect subsea systems to 

platforms, and deepwater production to hubs, involve weight that cannot be carried by more conventional 

shallow water systems. Though these effects also must be considered in shallow water developments, 

they are not as critical. 
81 

5.4. INFRASTRUCTURE

Over the many years of production in the Gulf of Mexico, a significant infrastructure has been built 

up along the Gulf Coast to serve the industry. Companies of all sorts (e.g., diving, repairs, equipment, 

food services, etc.) thrive in a relatively competitive environment giving operators a choice of provider 

for most of the services they require. But the bulk of these companies operate almost exclusively in the 

shallow water arena. The number of companies with the capability and experience to operate in 

deepwater is much smaller. As a result, shallow water facilities have an advantage in being able to obtain 

a more competitive price for these services than deepwater facilities. 

As an example, look at underwater inspection services. All facilities in the Gulf of Mexico have 

inspection requirements that must be met and there are a number of companies that can offer those 

services. The bulk of underwater inspections for shallow water facilities can be accomplished by divers 

operating from a dive boat in one or two days. These services can be contracted months in advance or, if 

available, only days in advance using a “vessel of opportunity.” However, for deepwater facilities, many 

underwater inspections must be accomplished using remote operated vehicles (ROV) that can descend 

much further than a diver. These operations can be accomplished by a far fewer number of companies 

and require much more planning and expense. 

5.5. DRILLING

As with most of the comparisons between shallow and deepwater facilities, the differences in drilling 

are driven by costs. Shallow water facilities are serviced by a number of experienced drilling contractors 

that offer a well-understood service. Operators can draw upon a fairly large equipment base (e.g., jack-up 

rigs). All of these things work to keep costs within a fairly manageable range which is necessary given 

the relatively low production rates generated by shallow water developments. Deepwater drilling 

contractors are fewer in number, their equipment is less plentiful, and their costs in time, materials and 

manpower are greater. 

5.6. PLATFORMS

The advantages and disadvantages of the different types of platforms available for a deepwater 

development have been discussed earlier in this document. The same sorts of factors used to differentiate 

deepwater options can also be used to differentiate shallow water options from deepwater options. In 

shallow water it is possible to install a minimal platform, capable of producing five wells for around $1 

million. Such a facility would be tied back to some other complex, so it would not be manned and would 

be fitted with only minimal processing equipment. Such a facility would probably produce up to about 

5,000 bbls/day. Given the relatively low cost of these platforms, it may be cheaper to install a few of 

these, connected by pipelines, rather than installing a larger platform producing from directional wells. 

Figure 51 shows a “large scale” minimal platform that has been designed for up to 650 feet water depth, 

and up to 25,000 BOPD; however, the cost would be closer to $10 million than $1 million. 

Because everything in deepwater is more expensive, the type of scenario described above would not 

be feasible in a deepwater environment. A platform producing only 5,000 bbl/day would not produce 

sufficient return to make a profit in deepwater. To exploit the larger reserves needed for a deepwater 

development platforms need to be capable of carrying larger process equipment, with more throughput 

and the fewer platforms required the better. 

To connect several structures in shallow water via pipelines requires a simple pipelay barge at a cost 

of around $30,000 per day. In deepwater, a semisubmersible installation vessel would be needed that 

may cost over $300,000 per day. So directional drilling becomes more attractive in deeper water to allow 

production of more wells from a central platform. Those that are too far away, or too complex to drill, 

may be produced through a subsea wellhead that is connected to the platform via a flowline. In the end, 

to make the investment pay off you’re more likely to end up with a single platform, manned 24 hours a 

day, producing close to 50,000 bbl/day. And the cost for such a platform may be in the area of $150 

million. 

This is a broad example used to illustrate a point and there are exceptions. The Cantarell field in the 

Bay of Campeche (Southern Gulf of Mexico) is mainly located in 150 feet water depth, but because of the 

huge size of the reservoir, and the extremely high production rates, these shallow water platforms are 
82 

large and clumped together to form bridge-connected complexes (see Figure 52). Also, in harsh 

environment areas, the arguments do not hold true as each platform is more expensive, and more likely to 

need to be permanently manned. (The risk and cost of using day visits is too high, and may often be 

prohibited by the weather.) 

Figure 51. SeaHarvester Minimal Platform 

(Courtesy of Sea Horse Platform 

Partners Ltd.). 

Figure 52. Platform Complex in Cantarell Field, Mexico. 
83 

5.7. WORKOVER

A producing well will normally require some maintenance during its life. For example, the well may 

penetrate various production zones, and, as one is depleted, the oil company will want to start producing 

from others. It may not be possible to complete and produce from multiple zones at the same time as they 

may be at different pressures which would result in hydrocarbons flowing from the higher pressure 

reservoir to the lower pressure one, with a consequent reduction in total production at the surface. In 

addition, the zones may be producing different products that the company may not want to “co-mingle.” 

Maintenance of an existing well may necessitate re-perforating (breaking up the rock formation around 

the well in order to allow the oil to flow into the production tubing) or other methods of stimulating 

recovery. All this requires workover. 

On a shallow water platform in the Gulf of Mexico, it is normal to bring a jack-up drilling rig 

alongside the platform, cantilever the derrick over the stern of the jack-up and out over the platform, and 

allow the derrick direct access to the wells, with all the drilling support equipment19 being contained on 

the jack-up. Given that all this equipment is supported on the jack-up, the platform does not have to be 

designed for the additional drilling weight, hence it can be much smaller and cheaper. The jack-up may 

cost in the range of $20,000 to $50,000 per day, depending on its size and the going rates, but that is 

inexpensive in comparison to the extra cost that would be associated with building a platform capable of 

supporting all the personnel and equipment required to work on the wells. Indeed, this ability to get 

access to the wells with a jack-up is one of the reasons that it is economic to use a relatively large number 

of small platforms in shallow water. 

In deepwater, there are a number of alternative solutions to the workover issue. The large platforms, 

like full-size TLP’s and most of the spars, have a drilling package mounted on the platform. This drilling 

package does most of the development drilling, and may be permanently mounted so that it can do the 

necessary workover. On the Baldpate compliant tower, a drilling package was installed soon after tower 

installation to complete the wells, but the intent was to remove it after these had been completed. To 

achieve this, Amerada Hess hired a drilling contractor to install their drilling rig and undertake the work. 

If at a later stage it is necessary to do additional drilling, then the rig can be brought back out to the 

platform, and re-installed. This way they are not saddled with the cost of purchasing and running a 

drilling package that will only be useful for a limited time. The rental cost for a platform rig will vary 

depending on the size of the equipment, complexity of the wells, etc., but will normally be in the range of 

$20,000 to $40,000 per day. This approach of a platform mounted drilling rig is often used in water 

depths that are too deep for a jack-up, although in some cases the platform rig will be supported by 

equipment mounted on a drilling tender, a barge that floats next to the platform. The disadvantage of 

using a drilling tender is that there is an increase in the amount of downtime due to weather, particularly 

in the winter months. 

The small TLPs, and some of the other minimal deepwater development options, use a floating 

mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU) to do their development drilling and workover. In the case of the 

Sir Douglas Morpeth mini-TLP, the wells were located approximately 1,500 feet south of the facility. 

The hydrocarbons are produced through flexible flowlines that run from subsea completions up to the 

platform. After processing, they are exported through steel catenary risers (SCR) to export pipelines to a 

shallow water production facility. If the wells need maintenance, a semisubmersible is brought in to reenter them, and carry out the additional work. The great advantage of this approach is that, like the 

shallow water platform, the structure does not need to be designed for the additional weight of the drilling 

package. The downside is that the cost of a deepwater semisubmersible drilling unit is much higher than 

the cost of a platform rig. A semisubmersible will likely cost between $50,000 and $120,000 per day 

depending on water depth and availability. In deepwater there are significantly fewer units capable of 

doing the drilling work, so their rates tend to be higher, but also subject to availability. Given that a 

 

19 This may be the full set of equipment required to drill a well, including mud pumps, shale shakers, blowout 

prevention equipment, electrical power generation, storage of all the consumables in both the sack store and bulk 

store, drilling crew and accommodation, drill pipe, etc. 
84 

deepwater well on a small platform may be producing at 20,000 bbd, downtime for that well will cost 

$300,000 per day at $15 per bbl20, so delays caused by unavailable rigs can be very expensive. 

5.8. BLOWOUTS

The potential for deepwater blowouts is a much-studied issue. The MMS has funded the first stage of 

a study being undertaken by Global Petroleum Research Institute (GPRI), the Offshore Technology 

Research Center (OTRC), and Texas A&M University to look at some of the issues associated with a 

deepwater blowout. It has been suggested that in the OCS there is one blowout for every 285 wells21. So 

far there have been no deepwater blowouts, although there have been a number of cases of sub-surface 

cross flow, where hydrocarbons have migrated from one formation to another because of downhole 

problems. However, there is no real reason to believe that there will not be a blowout, and the question 

then becomes, how it can be controlled. 

In shallow water there are a number of alternative control measures available depending on the 

circumstances of the blowout, and plenty of drilling units available for use in shallow water. Conversely, 

in deepwater not only are the options more limited, there are few units capable of operating at the 

required water depths. It may be that there are only one or two drillships capable of drilling in 10,000 feet 

water depth in the Gulf of Mexico at any given time, so the availability of a unit to undertake a dynamic 

kill22 is extremely limited, not counting the time taken to drill the intersecting well (which may be 25,000 

feet below the seabed). 

The issue of deepwater blowouts is complicated, and starting to get the serious study that it deserves. 

The intent of this very brief discussion is to establish that there are significant differences between 

shallow water blowouts and deepwater blowouts, but not to go into great detail. There are many other 

potential differences that are being studied. For example, a relatively large percentage of blowouts in 

shallow water “bridge over”23 (approximately 40%). It may be that the same could be said for deepwater 

wells, but it is not clear that that is true. The issue is complicated because the pressure gradient inside a 

deepwater well will be much lower than in a shallow water well, and a high pressure gradient leads to 

high flow rates, and an increased potential for bridging. Combine that with the different formations, and 

their propensity to collapse, and it is certainly not clear how deepwater wells would react in the event of 

open flow. 

5.9. EVACUATION

The issue of evacuation has been debated many times over the years. There are those who swear that 

the reason offshore installations are evacuated dates back to the early days of the industry when the 

offshore workers were needed onshore to help their families prepare for the hurricane’s arrival, or even 

evacuate the area. There are others who state that the perceived reliability of early offshore structures was 

 

20 There is always discussion regarding the effects of “loss of production.” There are those who argue that 

production is not lost, only delayed. Since the oil is in the ground, you can just get it out later. The other side of the 

argument is that the facility has been cost modeled based on certain production rates. If those rates are reduced for 

any reason, there is a cash flow crunch – all the debt associated with the installation needs to be serviced, but there is 

no money flowing in to service it. This is a real loss, and may cause the costs associated with the debt to increase, 

hence there is potentially an actual loss due to the delayed production. 

21 Podio Study of 1996. The statistics were presented at a deepwater blowout industry workshop on 15th August 

2002. Details of the presentation can be found at http://pumpjack.tamu.edu/gpri/index.html. 

22 A hole is drilled to intersect the well that is blowing out, normally close to where the hydrocarbons are entering 

the hole. Water is then pumped down the hole at a very high rate such that the back-pressure induced as the water 

flows up and out of the blowing well causes the hydrocarbons to stop flowing into the well. 

23 Bridging is simply the case where the well gets blocked with formation rock that flows into the well with the 

blowing out hydrocarbons. The pressure gradient is change in pressure, with respect to the distance, between the 

bottom of the hole, and the “surface.” In shallow water the “surface” may actually be at atmospheric pressure. In a 

deepwater well, the “surface” will be at the seabed, under 10,000 feet of water. If the deepwater and shallow water 

wells are at the same depth below the seabed, then the pressure gradient will likely be much greater on the shallow 

water well. 
85 

too low, and that evacuation was needed to protect the offshore workers. Yet others state that regulators 

mandate evacuation. Regardless of the real reasons, there are certain facts about all precautionary 

hurricane evacuations from offshore platforms: 

• In the event that a platform is hit by a hurricane, there is little that a crew could do 

onboard a platform, FPSO, or other installation apart from being inside a protected 

area. The wind force on a man in a 60-knot wind (about 70 mph) is roughly 70 

pounds. This increases to approximately 200 pounds in a wind of 100 knots (115 

mph). In addition, any loose objects will be flying around making open areas 

extremely dangerous. All processing should have been shut-in before transit of the 

storm, so little assistance could be given there. There is a possibility that on certain 

moored vessels, some limited actions could be taken to reduce the probability of a 

mooring failure. 

• Precautionary evacuations are associated with some risk – there have been people 

killed and injured during these evacuations. It is not to be inferred that staying 

offshore is necessarily safer than evacuation to shore, but there are inherent risks 

associated with any movement of personnel. 

• The potential for legal action by injured parties needs to be very carefully considered 

when discussing the merits or otherwise of precautionary evacuation. 

• As structures move further offshore, there is an increased need to plan evacuations 

such that those furthest offshore do not get stranded as those closer in are evacuated. 

This is discussed in greater detail below. 

Most of the shallow water Gulf of Mexico is relatively close to land such that a helicopter can fly out 

to a platform and back to land on a single tank of fuel. This is important because whenever a helicopter 

takes off, it must always have sufficient fuel to get back without having to take on additional fuel. This is 

to allow for unexpected eventualities that disallow landing at the expected destination (e.g., severe 

weather, fog, fire at the facility, etc.). Most shallow water facilities are located close enough that as long 

as they have a refueling facility, they meet this criterion. The same cannot be said for many of the 

deepwater facilities. In order to fly out to these, the helicopter must take on fuel part way out in order to 

have sufficient for the return flight. 

Consider now a platform that is used as the refueling station for another platform further offshore. If 

the refueling platform is threatened by a hurricane, it is necessary to evacuate both the nearshore platform, 

and the deepwater platform that it “serves.” In addition, the deepwater platform has to be evacuated first 

so that there are personnel on the inshore platform to refuel the helicopter. While this is not complicated 

for a few platforms, a major hurricane threatening a large area of the Gulf could lead to relatively 

complex logistical issues. In addition, there is a possibility that the near shore platforms could be 

evacuated by supply and crew boats. The boats will generally want to run for shelter in the event of 

severe weather (unlike large ships which will often put to sea when threatened by hurricanes), but can 

often help with the evacuation of close in platforms. Given that most supply boats will have a cruising 

speed of only about 12 knots, and the speed of a rapidly moving hurricane may be close to 12 knots, they 

will generally not want to wait offshore for too long before heading for home. 

There has been talk about having offshore bases that could be used for supplies, and as evacuation 

“ports” in the event of a hurricane. The intent would be that personnel are evacuated to these facilities, 

but remain offshore through the storm. While such a facility may be used in the future, none exist at 

present, so evacuation, and precautionary evacuations need to be carefully planned for the far offshore 

deepwater facilities. 
References 
89 

The following is a list of some of the more important documents accessed during the course of this 

project. Many of the papers were published at various Offshore Technology Conferences where new 

technology is often given an entire sessions, with six or more papers dedicated to the one subject. Much 

of the unreferenced information used was supplied directly by the companies approached, and hence 

cannot be given a public reference. Individuals closely associated with the particular projects supplied 

additional information. Some information was obtained off the Internet; but in most cases, this was 

subject to confirmation prior to its use. Some companies (particularly Shell) directed the authors to their 

web site as an official source of information. In these cases, the information was not subject to additional 

confirming research. Only a limited number of newspaper/periodical articles have been included, and 

only those that were found to be of particular relevance. Clearly, the authors are continually reviewing 

the trade press and much background information is gleaned from it. 

Beckmann, M.M., M.L. Byrd, J. Holt, J.W. Riley, C.K. Snell, C. Tyer, and D. Brewster. 1996. Pompano 

subsea development: Template/manifold, tree & ROV intervention systems. Paper No. 8205, 

presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX. 

Bevan, J. 1997, July 20. Miracle man from British Borneo city profile – Alan Gaynor has turned a 

quirky little shell company into Britain’s third largest independent oil producer. The Sunday 

Telegraph, London. 

Burke, R.G. 2000, February. Back to the cradle. Offshore Engineer, 22(4 pages). 

Business Wire. 1997, October 1. Gulf Island fabrication announces letter of intent for British Borneo’s 

Allegheny field SeaStar TLP. 

Carminati, J.R., L.F. Eaton, K.A. Folse, and R.E. Sokoll. 1999. Ursa TLP well systems. Paper No. 

10758, presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX. 

Davies, K. and M. Srivareerat. 1999. Morpeth SeaStar: foundation and tendon systems. Paper No. 

10856, presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX. 

de Koeijer, D.M., D. Renkema, J.C. Edel, C.H. Willis, and D. Payne. 1999. Installation of the Baldpate 

Compliant Tower. Paper No. 10919, presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 

TX. 

Digre, K.A., R.M. Kipp, R.J. Hunt, S.Y. Hanna, J.H. Chan, V. Rosen, and C. van der Voort. 1999. Ursa 

TLP, tendon & foundation design, fabrication, transportation and TLP installation. Paper No. 10756, 

presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX. 

Edel, J.C., S. Thibodeaux, F. Sezer, J.D. Payne, and C.H. Willis. 1999. Fabrication of the Baldpate 

compliant tower. Paper No. 10918, presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX. 

Ganguly, P., L. Goldberg, and B. Wood. 1997. The Pompano subsea inspection. Paper No. 8469, 

presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX. 

Gatlin, M.E. 1999. Operations role in the design and commissioning of the Ursa TLP. Paper No. 

10759, presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX. 

Glanville, R.S. 1996. The Oryx spar Vioska Knoll Block 826. Society of Naval Architects and Marine 

Engineers Offshore Symposium, Texas Section. 

Glanville, R.S. and R.D. Vardeman. 1999. The Neptune spar – performance over the first two years of 

production. Paper No. 11073, presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX. 

Gottung, P.W., K.A. Digre, R.A. Hughson, M.S. Lindsay, and H. Schipper. 1999. Ursa TLP topsidemodule installation and hull-deck-rig integration. Paper No. 10757, presented at the Offshore 

Technology Conference, Houston, TX. 

Grimond, M. 1997, July 17. British Borneo to raise pounds 167 m from shareholders. Independent, 

London, Page 23. 

Hart’s Daily Petroleum Monitor. 1998, October 21. British Borneo field onstream.

Hosey, J. 1996, October/November. A mate’s life on a Gulf supply boat. Professional Mariner, 21:11. 
90 

Hunt, M. and L. Gary. 2000, January. Gulf of Mexico fabrication yards build 5,500 platforms over 50 

years. Offshore, 60(1): 94. 

Jefferis, R.G., K.A. Digre, and J.P. Haney. 1999. Ursa – team-based project management – overcoming 

adversity in 4000 ft. of water. Paper No. 10753, presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, 

Houston, TX. 

Kennefick, J., P. Lang, and D. Harvey. 1999. Morpeth export system. Paper No. 10859, presented at the 

Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX. 

Kibbee, S.E, S.J. Leverette, K.B. Davies, and R.B. Matten. 1999. Morpeth SeaStar Mini-TLP. Paper 

No. 10855, presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX. 

Knott, T. 2000, January. SAW cuts against the grain. Offshore Engineer, 28 (2 pages). 

Kocaman, A., E. Verdin, and J. Toups. 1997. Neptune project: spar hull, mooring and topsides 

installation. Paper No. 8385, presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX. 

Kypke, D.A. 1995. Tension leg platforms, in the beginning... Society of Naval Architects and Marine 

Engineers Offshore Symposium, Texas Section. 

Le Blanc, L. 1996, November. Spar-shaped drilling unit designed for 8,000-10,000 ft depth corridor. 

Offshore, 56(11):30 

Lehtinen, T. 1997. Spar hull construction. Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers 5th

Offshore Symposium, Texas Section. 

Lochte, G., T. Dean, D. Gray, C. Kochenower, C. Loper, and O. Tarlton. 1999. Morpeth subsea 

production system. Paper No. 10858, presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 

TX. 

Major, R.A., G.R. Frazer, J.E. Taylor, and J.A. Mercier. 1999. World’s fifth TLP to achieve 

classification. Paper No. 11072, presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX. 

Means, E. and B. Wright. 2000, January 14. Aker and J Ray kill off spars. Upstream, 5(02):7.

Oil & Gas Journal. 1994, September 5. BP installs big pompano platform in Gulf of Mexico, 92(36):34.

Oil & Gas Journal. 1995, March 13. Economics and technology spark deepwater projects in Gulf, 

93(11):25. 

Oil & Gas Journal. 1996, September 9. Deepwater experience, prospects outlined, 94(37):35.

Preston, S.M., T.D. Caldwell, M.M. Beckmann, R.F. Coffman, D. Hanks, and C.L. Hebert. 1996. 

Pompano subsea development: An example of how successful client/contractor relationships result in 

effective project execution. Paper No. 8204, presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, 

Houston, TX. 

Professional Mariner. 2000, December/January. Gulf coast mariners have a new voice, 45:16. 

Redfern, I.J., D.E. Calkins, and R.B. Matten. 1999. Morpeth SeaStar installation. Paper No. 10857, 

presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX. 

Rigden, D. 2000, February 11. Sinking Borneo sends a mayday. Upstream, 5(06):31.

Simon, J.V., J.C. Edel, and C. Melancon. 1999. An overview of the Baldpate project. Paper No. 10914, 

presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX. 

Smith, P.L., S.B. Hodges, and K.A. Digre, B.A. Sarwono, and H. Schipper. 1999. Ursa TLP hull design, 

fabrication, and transportation. Paper No. 10754, presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, 

Houston, TX. 

Upstream. 2000, January 21. Pompano opens door for Mica. 5(03). 

Wall Street Journal. 1994, November 10. Oryx Energy to use a floating system in Gulf of Mexico. 
91 

William, J., F. Roach, V.C. Knight, G.E. Lochte, S.E. Kibbee, and N. Mackintosh. 1999. Morpeth field 

development overview. Paper No. 10854, presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, 

Houston, TX. 

Wright, B. 2000, February 11. McDermott hits Typhoon jackpot. Upstream, 5(06):12. 

Wright, B. and E. Means. 2000, January 7. Statoil heads for deep-water exit. Upstream, 5(01):2. 

Vardeman, D., S. Richardson, and C.R. McCandless. 1997. Neptune project: overview and project 

management. Paper No. 8381, presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX. 

Zimmer, R.A., R.F. Figgers, J.F. Geesling, H. Kim, D.H. Yeung, Z. Banatwala, G.A. Sidwell, J.A. Stout, 

B.W. Harris, and M. van Vught. 1999. Design and fabrication of the Ursa TLP deck modules and 

TLP hull upper column frame. Paper No. 10755, presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, 

Houston, TX. 
A-1 

Appendix 
A-3 

GEOGRAPHY 

Jefferson Orleans Plaquemines St. Bernard St. Charles St. James St. John the Baptist St. Tammany

Ascension East Baton Rouge East Feliciana Iberville Livingston Pointe Coupee St. Helena Tangipahoa Washington West Baton Rouge West Feliciana 

AssumpLafourcTerrebo

Acadia Evangeline Iberia Lafayette St. Landry St. Martin St. Mary Vermilion

Allen Beauregard Calcasieu Cameron Jefferson Davis

Avoyelles Catahoula Concordia Grant LaSalle Rapides Vernon Winn 

Bienville Bossier Caddo Claiborne DeSoto Lincoln Natchitoches Red River Sabine Webster 

CaldweEast CaFrankliJackson MadisoMorehoOuachiRichlanTensas Union West Ca

Figure A-1. Data for the 1998-2008 Employment Projections Cover the State of Louisiana and the Eight Regional Labor Market Areas 

* *

* Please note: The geographic make-up of these areas have been redefined; therefore, data are not comparable to previous projections. (RLMA 1 now includes the parishes of St. Charles, St. James, and St. John the Baptist. RLMA3 now excludes parishes St. Charles, St. James and St. John the Baptist.)
A-4 

GEOGRAPHY 

RLMA 3 Houma MSA 

Figure A-2. Houma Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Includes Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes Compared to Regional L

(RLMA 3), which also Includes Assumption Parish. 
A-5

Table A-1 

Regional Labor Market Area and Houma Metropolitan Statistical Area—1999 Wage Comparison 

 RLMA 3 Houma M

SOCCode Occupational Title Total # Empl. Mean ($/hour) Entry ($/hour) Median ($/hour) Experience ($/hour) Annual $ Total # Empl. Mean ($/hour) Entry ($/hour) M

($

Management Occupations 11-1011 Chief Executives 280 41.18 23.88 32.80 > 70.00 85,657 270 39.75 22.95 11-1021 General & Operations Managers 1,820 25.39 16.90 21.62 32.30 52,804 1,720 25.08 17.21 11-1031 Legislators * 5.96 5.75 6.17 6.58 12,398 * ** 5.55 11-2011 Advertising & Promotions Managers 30 36.77 24.64 35.79 42.69 76,477 30 35.47 23.77 11-2021 Marketing Managers 50 22.86 17.34 23.35 26.23 47,540 50 22.05 16.73 11-2022 Sales Managers 390 28.25 17.10 25.44 35.39 58,756 390 27.25 16.50 11-3011 Administrative Services Managers 110 18.09 10.18 17.20 24.49 37,624 110 17.14 9.74 11-3021 Computer & Information Systems 

Managers 

 40 23.72 18.60 21.48 26.20 49,343 40 22.88 17.94 

11-3031 Financial Managers 180 26.81 13.90 21.37 33.93 55,764 170 26.13 13.34 11-3040 Human Resources Managers 60 24.05 17.92 22.99 31.37 50,020 60 23.05 17.16 11-3051 Industrial Production Managers 110 25.71 18.60 25.12 34.26 53,474 110 24.70 17.73 11-3061 Purchasing Managers 80 21.58 13.85 19.66 29.64 44,882 70 20.67 13.29 11-3071 Transportation, Storage, & Distribution 

Managers. 

 50 19.40 16.09 19.30 22.51 40,354 50 18.72 15.52 

11-9021 Construction Managers 80 24.23 19.60 22.31 26.11 50,392 80 23.37 18.91 11-9041 Engineering Managers 70 29.34 21.44 30.68 35.60 61,019 * 29.14 21.08 11-9051 Food Service Managers 130 12.23 8.50 10.41 15.67 25,449 130 11.81 8.20 11-9061 Funeral Directors 30 13.82 8.60 13.82 16.99 28,733 30 13.32 8.30 11-9081 Lodging Managers * 13.56 12.23 13.31 14.98 28,203 N/A N/A N/A 11-9111 Medical & Health Services Managers * 18.61 10.37 17.66 24.77 38,702 N/A N/A N/A 11-9141 Property, Real Estate, & Community 

Association Managers 

* 17.61 7.97 9.15 12.44 36,641 N/A N/A N/A 

11-9151 Social & Community Service Managers 20 23.87 22.95 25.09 27.22 49,652 N/A N/A N/A 11-9199 Managers, All Other 220 20.62 15.64 18.78 25.60 42,885 220 19.65 15.04 
A-6

Table A-1 

Regional Labor Market Area and Houma Metropolitan Statistical Area—1999 Wage Comparison 

 RLMA 3 Houma M

SOCCode Occupational Title Total # Empl. Mean ($/hour) Entry ($/hour) Median ($/hour) Experience ($/hour) Annual $ Total # Empl. Mean ($/hour) Entry ($/hour) M

($

Business and Financial Operations Occupations 13-1021 Purchasing Agents & Buyers, Farm 

Products 

* 15.50 11.90 13.67 19.73 32,233 N/A N/A N/A 

13-1022 Wholesale & Retail Buyers, Except Farm 

Products 

 30 15.08 12.63 14.17 18.00 31,365 30 14.47 12.27 

13-1023 Purchasing Agents, Except Wholesale, 

Retail, & Farm Products 

 100 16.15 11.92 14.75 20.44 33,590 100 15.34 11.45 

13-1031 Claims Adjusters, Examiners, & 

Investigators 

 10 21.74 16.20 18.90 29.64 45,219 N/A N/A N/A 

13-1051 Cost Estimators 80 24.12 17.70 22.29 27.78 50,162 80 22.62 16.77 13-1061 Emergency Management Specialists 10 23.03 13.51 21.46 31.66 47,898 N/A N/A N/A 13-1071 Employment, Recruitment, & Placement 

Specialists 

 10 15.98 13.59 15.80 18.24 33,250 N/A N/A N/A 

13-1072 Compensation, Benefits, & Job Analysis 

Specialists 

 20 13.53 11.20 12.99 16.54 28,142 N/A N/A N/A 

13-1073 Training & Development Specialists * 18.35 14.66 17.19 22.09 38,154 * 17.70 14.14 13-1199 Business Operations Specialists, All Other 210 22.96 12.64 25.70 31.98 47,754 210 22.15 12.19 13-2011 Accountants & Auditors 330 18.24 13.26 16.54 21.00 37,955 330 17.83 12.75 13-2072 Loan Officers 50 17.54 15.11 17.55 20.24 36,474 50 16.92 14.58 13-2099 Financial Specialists, All Other 50 11.56 9.30 10.26 14.62 24,030 50 11.14 8.97 Computer and Mathematical Occupations 15-1021 Computer Programmers 10 16.90 12.14 15.95 20.34 35,142 N/A N/A N/A 15-1041 Computer Support Specialists * 17.32 12.26 13.32 17.08 36,039 * 16.62 11.76 15-1051 Computer Systems Analysts 50 21.56 16.60 21.10 26.26 44,837 50 20.69 15.93 15-1099 Computer Specialists, All Other 20 17.47 15.56 17.06 19.40 36,326 N/A N/A N/A Architecture and Engineering Occupations 17-2111 Health & Safety Engineers, Except Mining 

Safety Engineers & Inspectors 

 20 26.90 21.21 25.13 31.63 55,966 * 28.21 20.76 

17-2112 Industrial Engineers 30 26.19 24.06 26.02 27.98 54,474 30 25.13 23.08 17-2199 Engineers, All Other 80 30.34 26.18 30.94 34.80 63,117 * 29.11 25.12 17-3011 Architectural & Civil Drafters * 13.45 10.51 13.52 16.09 27,961 N/A N/A N/A 
A-7

Table A-1 

Regional Labor Market Area and Houma Metropolitan Statistical Area—1999 Wage Comparison 

 RLMA 3 Houma M

SOCCode Occupational Title Total # Empl. Mean ($/hour) Entry ($/hour) Median ($/hour) Experience ($/hour) Annual $ Total # Empl. Mean ($/hour) Entry ($/hour) M

($

17-3022 Civil Engineering Technicians * 18.35 11.38 17.02 24.16 38,157 * 17.61 10.92 17-3099 All Other Drafters, Engineering, & 

Mapping Technicians 

 40 18.18 13.05 16.63 28.55 37,814 40 17.01 11.44 

Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations 19-4099 Life, Physical, & Social Science 

Technicians, All Other 

 20 19.49 17.56 20.20 23.10 40,547 N/A N/A N/A 

Community and Social Service Occupations 21-1013 Marriage & Family Therapists * 9.91 9.44 10.04 10.62 20,618 N/A N/A N/A 21-1014 Mental Health Counselors * 14.98 14.17 15.52 16.89 31,164 * 14.37 13.59 21-1021 Child, Family, & School Social Workers 60 14.84 11.95 13.88 17.58 30,880 60 14.24 11.46 21-1022 Medical & Public Health Social Workers * 9.55 6.01 6.66 15.17 19,854 * 9.01 5.76 21-1093 Social & Human Service Assistants 90 9.20 6.95 8.85 11.05 19,149 90 8.90 6.60 21-9099 All Other Counselors, Social & Religious 

Workers. 

 80 12.97 7.88 12.44 16.29 26,965 80 12.44 7.56 

Legal Occupations 23-1011 Lawyers 50 16.00 6.83 13.36 19.93 33,272 50 15.37 6.55 23-2091 Court Reporters 20 13.35 12.04 13.33 15.17 27,777 N/A N/A N/A Education, Training, and Library Occupations 25-3021 Self-Enrichment Education Teachers * 17.23 14.88 17.35 19.88 35,834 * 16.53 14.28 25-4021 Librarians * 17.44 13.55 17.27 20.79 36,264 * 16.44 12.68 25-9041 Teacher Assistants * **   **  15,148 * ** ** Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations 27-1024 Graphic Designers 20 12.40 9.27 14.23 15.97 25,807 N/A N/A N/A 27-4013 Radio Operators 30 10.69 7.62 9.61 12.87 22,255 * 10.27 7.26 27-4021 Photographers * 7.83 5.97 6.92 9.65 16,283 N/A N/A N/A Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations 29-1051 Pharmacists 90 29.15 24.22 30.45 37.65 60,644 90 27.46 22.66 29-1111 Registered Nurses 270 19.78 16.64 19.21 22.57 41,145 250 18.92 15.90 29-1123 Physical Therapists * 37.58 27.46 36.59 50.68 78,163 * 35.90 26.22 
A-8

Table A-1 

Regional Labor Market Area and Houma Metropolitan Statistical Area—1999 Wage Comparison 

 RLMA 3 Houma M

SOCCode Occupational Title Total # Empl. Mean ($/hour) Entry ($/hour) Median ($/hour) Experience ($/hour) Annual $ Total # Empl. Mean ($/hour) Entry ($/hour) M

($

29-2041 Emergency Medical Technicians & 

Paramedics 

 30 11.38 8.88 11.40 13.93 23,666 * 10.92 8.52 

29-2051 Dietetic Technicians - 9.65 8.39 9.61 10.72 20,075 N/A N/A N/A 29-2052 Pharmacy Technicians 130 7.71 6.58 7.67 8.79 16,035 130 7.36 6.23 Healthcare Support Occupations 29-2061 Licensed Practical & Licensed Vocational 

Nurses 

 360 11.80 9.77 11.01 13.29 24,540 * 11.32 9.36 

29-2071 Medical Records & Health Information 

Technicians 

 10 8.98 8.06 9.09 10.14 18,697 N/A N/A N/A 

29-2081 Opticians, Dispensing * 9.10 7.72 9.55 10.43 18,918 * 8.73 7.42 31-1012 Nursing Aides, Orderlies, & Attendants 590 6.63 5.96 6.52 7.14 13,798 590 6.38 5.78 31-9091 Dental Assistants 250 9.13 7.20 8.22 10.94 18,993 * 8.80 6.94 31-9099 Healthcare Support Workers, All Other * 10.20 9.50 10.16 10.84 21,225 * 9.83 9.15 Protective Service Occupations 33-1012 First-Line Supervisors/ 

Managers of Police & Detectives 

 30 16.91 12.77 15.76 18.09 35,167 30 16.29 12.29 

33-3021 Detectives & Criminal Investigators 70 15.02 10.72 12.67 16.13 31,247 * 14.48 10.33 33-3051 Police & Sheriff's Patrol Officers 310 11.53 9.85 11.15 13.27 23,975 * 11.41 9.69 33-9032 Security Guards 390 8.00 6.26 7.17 9.31 16,634 390 7.75 6.07 33-9099 Protective Service Workers, All Other * 6.29 5.77 6.20 6.62 13,092 * 6.06 5.56 Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations 35-1012 First-Line Supervisors/ 

Managers of Food Preparation & Serving Workers 

 320 11.66 7.65 10.68 15.41 24,234 310 11.42 7.49 

35-2011 Cooks, Fast Food 940 6.05 5.74 6.08 6.51 12,591 940 5.78 5.66 35-2012 Cooks, Institution & Cafeteria 470 8.13 6.16 6.96 9.72 16,911 * 7.82 5.95 35-2014 Cooks, Restaurant * 7.56 6.10 7.33 8.94 15,726 * 7.26 5.94 35-2015 Cooks, Short Order * 6.26 5.94 6.39 6.92 13,016 60 5.90 5.72 35-2021 Food Preparation Workers 740 6.38 5.81 6.29 6.76 13,288 * 6.19 5.61 35-3011 Bartenders 120 6.22 5.66 5.96 6.26 12,938 120 6.23 5.69 
A-9

Table A-1 

Regional Labor Market Area and Houma Metropolitan Statistical Area—1999 Wage Comparison 

 RLMA 3 Houma M

SOCCode Occupational Title Total # Empl. Mean ($/hour) Entry ($/hour) Median ($/hour) Experience ($/hour) Annual $ Total # Empl. Mean ($/hour) Entry ($/hour) M

($

35-3021 Combined Food Preparation & Serving 

Workers, Incl.uding Fast Food 

 700 6.34 5.65 5.95 6.25 13,200 700 6.02 5.66 

35-3022 Counter Attendants, Cafeteria, Food 

Concession, & Coffee Shop 

 80 7.09 6.09 6.72 8.26 14,754 80 6.51 5.81 

35-3031 Waiters & Waitresses 860 6.43 5.77 6.14 6.68 13,358 860 6.14 5.69 35-9011 Dining Room & Cafeteria Attendants & 

Bartender Helpers 

* 6.01 5.80 6.19 6.63 12,493 * 5.77 5.64 

35-9021 Dishwashers 190 6.07 5.78 6.23 6.66 12,622 190 5.85 5.57 35-9031 Hosts & Hostesses, Restaurant, Lounge, & 

Coffee Shop 

 130 6.29 5.81 6.22 6.85 13,075 130 6.02 5.70 

Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations 37-1011 First-Line Supervisors/ 

Managers of Housekeeping & Janitorial Workers 

 50 11.76 7.58 9.62 11.14 24,452 50 11.33 7.30 

37-1012 First-Line Supervisors/ 

Managers of Landscaping, Lawn Service, & Groundskeeping Workers 

* 12.69 11.76 12.70 13.65 26,406 30 12.19 11.29 

37-2011 Janitors & Cleaners, Except Maids & 

Housekeeping Cleaners 

 980 7.04 6.00 6.68 7.96 14,634 970 6.65 5.82 

37-2012 Maids & Housekeeping Cleaners 330 6.93 6.01 6.80 8.01 14,413 310 6.67 5.87 37-3011 Landscaping & Groundskeeping Workers 250 9.02 7.31 8.37 9.91 18,751 * 8.56 6.91 37-9099 All Other Building & Grounds Cleaning & 

Maintenance Workers 

 60 7.50 6.14 6.92 8.45 15,604 60 7.21 5.90 

Personal Care and Service Occupations 39-1021 First-Line Supervisors/ 

Managers of Personal Service Workers 

 30 10.06 6.55 10.76 12.84 20,925 30 9.69 6.31 

39-5012 Hairdressers, Hairstylists, & 

Cosmetologists 

 120 7.85 7.13 7.92 8.70 16,331 120 7.57 6.87 

39-9011 Child Care Workers 90 6.40 5.70 6.04 6.48 13,321 90 6.09 5.68 39-9031 Fitness Trainers & Aerobics Instructors * 5.97 5.76 6.18 6.59 12,414 N/A N/A N/A 39-9032 Recreation Workers 80 6.15 5.82 6.25 6.70 12,798 80 5.90 5.58 
A-10

Table A-1 

Regional Labor Market Area and Houma Metropolitan Statistical Area—1999 Wage Comparison 

 RLMA 3 Houma M

SOCCode Occupational Title Total # Empl. Mean ($/hour) Entry ($/hour) Median ($/hour) Experience ($/hour) Annual $ Total # Empl. Mean ($/hour) Entry ($/hour) M

($

Sales and Related Occupations 41-1011 First-Line Supervisors/ 

Managers of Retail Sales Workers 

 870 13.59 9.79 12.26 16.58 28,270 800 13.72 9.97 

41-1012 First-Line Supervisors/ 

Managers of Non-Retail Sales Workers 

 40 15.75 11.59 13.18 17.19 32,775 40 15.19 11.17 

41-2011 Cashiers 2,330 6.56 5.84 6.29 6.92 13,636 2,140 6.32 5.78 41-2021 Counter & Rental Clerks 120 8.29 6.14 7.14 9.38 17,249 120 7.99 6.02 41-2022 Parts Salespersons 240 10.41 7.50 9.44 12.79 21,654 240 10.05 7.25 41-2031 Retail Salespersons 2,390 8.78 6.08 6.88 9.19 18,265 2,380 8.50 5.94 41-3011 Advertising Sales Agents * 14.99 9.98 12.38 15.93 31,189 * 14.46 9.62 41-3021 Insurance Sales Agents 160 26.51 20.03 28.30 32.26 55,154 * 25.55 19.30 41-3041 Travel Agents 30 8.68 6.27 9.25 10.49 18,043 30 8.36 6.13 41-4011 Sales Representative, Wholesale & 

Manufacturing, Technical. & Scientific Products 

 80 17.62 11.97 17.18 22.42 36,650 80 16.93 11.48 

41-4012 Sales Representative, Wholesale & 

Manufacturing, Except Technical & Scientific Products 

 720 19.10 11.55 17.86 23.99 39,740 720 18.44 11.14 

41-9022 Real Estate Sales Agents * 9.38 5.84 6.34 6.83 19,511 N/A N/A N/A 41-9031 Sales Engineers 60 27.63 21.03 25.62 38.28 57,475 60 26.63 20.27 41-9099 Sales & Related Workers, All Other * 9.57 6.01 6.68 9.33 19,904 * 9.22 5.79 Office and Administrative Support Occupations 43-1011 First-Line Supervisors/ 

Managers of Office & Administrative Support Workers 

 470 14.43 9.92 12.05 16.66 30,002 470 14.20 9.46 

43-2011 Switchboard Operators, Including 

Answering Service 

 80 8.14 6.56 8.01 9.51 16,937 * 7.77 6.27 

43-3011 Bill & Account Collectors 100 10.03 7.96 9.82 11.66 20,863 * 9.61 7.63 43-3021 Billing & Posting Clerks & Machine 

Operators 

 120 10.67 8.08 9.60 12.37 22,185 120 10.27 7.78 

43-3031 Bookkeeping, Accounting, & Auditing 

Clerks 

 1,270 9.57 7.13 8.76 11.43 19,898 1,250 9.19 6.82 
A-11

Table A-1 

Regional Labor Market Area and Houma Metropolitan Statistical Area—1999 Wage Comparison 

 RLMA 3 Houma M

SOCCode Occupational Title Total # Empl. Mean ($/hour) Entry ($/hour) Median ($/hour) Experience ($/hour) Annual $ Total # Empl. Mean ($/hour) Entry ($/hour) M

($

43-3051 Payroll & Timekeeping Clerks 40 12.15 9.59 11.89 13.95 25,282 40 11.59 9.13 43-3061 Procurement Clerks 20 10.56 8.37 10.26 12.67 21,972 N/A N/A N/A 43-4051 Customer Service Representatives 270 9.62 7.79 9.42 11.10 20,019 * 9.22 7.46 43-4071 File Clerks * 7.41 6.33 7.31 8.42 15,412 * 7.05 6.09 43-4081 Hotel, Motel, & Resort Desk Clerks 80 7.31 6.21 6.88 8.31 15,198 80 7.00 5.96 43-4111 Interviewers, Except Eligibility & Loan 70 8.94 7.40 8.73 10.46 18,579 * 8.55 7.06 43-4131 Loan Interviewers & Clerks 60 10.41 9.16 10.42 11.97 21,647 * 9.97 8.78 43-4151 Order Clerks * 15.28 11.95 15.26 16.95 31,779 * 14.64 11.45 43-4999 All Other Financial, Information, & Record 

Clerks 

* 9.67 6.12 6.87 14.90 20,101 N/A N/A N/A 

43-5032 Dispatchers, Except Police, Fire, & 

Ambulance 

 270 13.10 9.73 11.09 16.47 27,255 270 12.56 9.31 

43-5041 Meter Readers, Utilities * 9.61 7.63 9.71 11.72 19,997 * 9.21 7.31 43-5061 Production, Planning, & Expediting Clerks 240 13.42 10.70 12.70 15.44 27,919 240 12.82 10.26 43-5071 Shipping, Receiving, & Traffic Clerks 250 9.76 7.62 8.77 10.89 20,297 250 9.37 7.31 43-5081 Stock Clerks & Order Fillers 1,010 8.26 6.15 7.12 9.46 17,176 1,010 7.90 5.96 43-5111 Weighers, Measurers, Checkers, & 

Samplers 

 40 12.50 6.89 9.95 17.17 26,010 N/A N/A N/A 

43-4161 Human Resources Assistants, Except 

Payroll & Timekeeping 

 30 11.75 8.42 10.79 13.44 24,455 30 11.05 8.04 

43-4171 Receptionists & Information Clerks 780 8.29 7.02 8.25 9.54 17,236 770 8.07 6.95 43-5199 All Other Material Record., Scheduling, 

Dispatching, & Distributing Workers 

* 12.19 11.18 12.32 13.42 25,367 * 11.68 10.71 

43-6011 Executive Secretaries & Administrative 

Assistants 

 340 12.53 9.79 11.71 14.88 26,052 340 12.03 9.39 

43-6013 Medical Secretaries * 9.84 8.54 9.86 11.36 20,476 * 9.43 8.18 43-6014 Secretaries, Except Legal, Medical, & 

Executive 

 2,440 11.16 8.32 11.57 13.61 23,207 2,390 10.75 8.02 

43-9011 Computer Operators 90 10.40 7.01 9.12 11.93 21,616 90 9.85 6.66 43-9021 Data Entry Keyers 130 7.83 6.29 7.48 9.29 16,294 130 7.45 6.04 43-9022 Word Processors & Typists 40 8.26 6.52 7.75 10.03 17,179 * 7.87 6.22 
A-12

Table A-1 

Regional Labor Market Area and Houma Metropolitan Statistical Area—1999 Wage Comparison 

 RLMA 3 Houma M

SOCCode Occupational Title Total # Empl. Mean ($/hour) Entry ($/hour) Median ($/hour) Experience ($/hour) Annual $ Total # Empl. Mean ($/hour) Entry ($/hour) M

($

43-9041 Insurance Claims & Policy Processing 

Clerks 

 20 14.20 12.11 13.00 13.88 29,529 N/A N/A N/A 

43-9061 Office Clerks, General 1,440 9.32 6.81 8.41 10.78 19,391 1,440 8.91 6.51 43-9999 All Other Secretaries, Administrative 

Assistants, & Other Office Support 

 70 13.81 11.33 13.92 16.15 28,727 70 13.21 11.02 

Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Construction and Extraction Occupations 47-1011 First-Line Supervisors/ 

Managers of Construction Trades & Extraction Workers 

 1,490 17.48 15.12 18.16 20.40 36,352 1480 16.80 14.55 

47-2031 Carpenters 460 10.55 6.67 10.68 13.60 21,940 460 10.16 6.42 47-2051 Cement Masons & Concrete Finishers * 8.01 5.92 6.49 9.97 16,665 * 7.72 5.70 47-2061 Construction Laborers 60 7.79 6.23 7.13 8.48 16,196 60 7.48 5.98 47-2073 Operating Engineers & Other Construction 

Equipment Operators 

 110 12.94 10.23 12.14 14.54 26,924 110 12.33 9.76 

47-2111 Electricians 270 13.80 11.96 13.24 15.64 28,713 260 13.28 11.50 47-2121 Glaziers * 8.72 6.23 9.08 11.37 18,155 * 8.41 6.00 47-2141 Painters, Construction & Maintenance 420 11.97 11.28 12.36 13.43 24,915 420 11.53 10.86 47-2152 Plumbers, Pipefitters, & Steamfitters 1,000 14.87 12.41 15.03 16.78 30,943 1,000 14.31 12.00 47-2221 Structural Iron & Steel Workers * 15.02 13.87 15.29 16.63 31,227 * 14.46 13.36 47-3012 Helpers--Carpenters 30 9.39 6.98 8.54 11.95 19,541 * 9.03 6.70 47-4011 Construction & Building Inspectors 20 16.64 12.12 15.38 21.04 34,614 * 7.58 6.26 47-4999 All Other Construction Trades & Related 

Workers 

* 10.76 8.50 10.54 13.13 22,377 30 10.40 8.56 

Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations 49-1011 First-Line Supervisors/ 

Managers of Mechanics, Installers, & Repairmen 

 300 18.45 14.28 18.65 22.40 38,388 300 17.77 13.75 

49-2091 Avionics Technicians 10 8.05 6.18 7.01 8.83 16,744 N/A N/A N/A 49-2094 Electrical & Electronic Repairmen, 

Commercial & Industrial Equipment 

 140 21.78 17.40 23.34 26.03 45,310 140 20.97 16.75 
A-13

Table A-1 

Regional Labor Market Area and Houma Metropolitan Statistical Area—1999 Wage Comparison 

 RLMA 3 Houma M

SOCCode Occupational Title Total # Empl. Mean ($/hour) Entry ($/hour) Median ($/hour) Experience ($/hour) Annual $ Total # Empl. Mean ($/hour) Entry ($/hour) M

($

49-3023 Automotive Service Technicians & 

Mechanics 

 490 14.75 11.36 14.71 18.44 30,682 490 14.20 10.94 

49-3031 Bus & Truck Mechanics & Diesel Engine 

Specialists 

 350 13.80 10.70 13.51 17.27 28,700 350 13.28 10.28 

49-3042 Mobile Heavy Equipment Mechanics, 

Except Engines 

 390 15.14 11.83 13.97 16.85 31,499 390 14.75 11.50 

49-3051 Motorboat Mechanics 50 14.60 10.96 13.77 17.88 30,363 50 14.06 10.55 49-3053 Outdoor Power Equipment & Other Small 

Engine Mechanics 

* 10.79 8.05 9.76 14.36 22,434 * 10.39 7.75 

49-3092 Recreational Vehicle Service Technician * 12.18 9.81 12.14 14.83 25,342 N/A N/A N/A 49-3093 Tire Repairers & Changers * 7.96 7.22 7.93 8.66 16,558 * 7.66 6.95 49-3099 All Other Vehicle & Mobile Equipment 

Mechanics, Installers, & Repairmen 

* 8.40 7.57 8.12 8.68 17,467 * 8.09 7.29 

49-9012 Control & Valve Installers & Repairmen, 

Except Mechanical Door 

 40 17.75 11.67 16.40 24.55 36,916 40 17.09 11.25 

49-9021 Heating, Air Conditioning, & Refrigeration 

Mechanics & Installers 

 120 12.88 11.02 12.65 14.39 26,793 120 12.40 10.61 

49-9041 Industrial Machinery Mechanics 180 17.00 14.34 15.97 17.60 35,372 180 16.37 13.81 49-9042 Maintenance & Repair Workers, General 640 10.69 7.74 9.67 12.19 22,233 640 10.70 7.85 49-9043 Maintenance Workers, Machinery * 14.03 9.34 12.70 19.74 29,189 * 14.14 9.92 49-9044 Millwrights 100 16.43 9.68 14.84 20.95 34,181 100 15.83 9.32 49-9052 Telecommunications Line Installers & 

Repairmen 

 70 17.89 12.07 19.11 23.15 37,216 * 17.23 11.63 

49-9069 Precision Instrument & Equipment 

Repairmen, All Other 

* 16.93 13.81 17.46 19.93 35,215 N/A N/A N/A 

49-9096 Riggers * 10.57 8.90 9.94 11.03 21,987 * 10.15 8.59 49-9098 Helpers--Installation, Maintenance, & 

Repair Workers 

 220 8.88 7.21 8.48 10.17 18,471 190 8.55 6.94 

49-9099 Installation, Maintenance, & Repair 

Workers, All Other 

 170 14.27 12.24 13.96 16.32 29,671 170 13.74 11.79 
A-14

Table A-1 

Regional Labor Market Area and Houma Metropolitan Statistical Area—1999 Wage Comparison 

 RLMA 3 Houma M

SOCCode Occupational Title Total # Empl. Mean ($/hour) Entry ($/hour) Median ($/hour) Experience ($/hour) Annual $ Total # Empl. Mean ($/hour) Entry ($/hour) M

($

Production Occupations 51-1011 First-Line Supervisors/ 

Managers of Production & Operating Workers 

 460 21.76 14.54 19.29 29.41 45,263 400 21.97 14.76 

51-2041 Structural Metal Fabricators & Fitters * 14.10 12.25 14.42 16.20 29,331 * 13.71 12.05 51-2092 Team Assemblers 130 11.76 10.35 12.04 13.37 24,475 130 11.42 10.05 51-2099 Assemblers & Fabricators, All Other * 13.73 12.22 14.44 15.98 28,551 * 13.33 11.86 51-3011 Bakers 110 7.13 5.88 6.42 8.06 14,841 110 6.84 5.78 51-3021 Butchers & Meat Cutters 200 10.02 6.50 9.99 13.03 20,854 200 9.66 6.26 51-3022 Meat, Poultry, & Fish Cutters & Trimmers 80 6.87 5.75 6.19 7.87 14,301 80 6.62 5.76 51-4033 Grinding, Polishing & Buffing Machine 

Tool Setter, Operator, Metal & Plastic 

* 12.56 11.45 12.55 13.64 26,121 30 12.19 11.12 

51-4034 Lathe & Turning Machine Tool Setter, 

Operator, Metal & Plastic 

 200 15.80 11.30 13.74 21.41 32,859 200 15.34 10.97 

51-4041 Machinists 520 14.43 12.08 14.53 16.44 29,998 520 13.73 11.61 51-4121 Welders, Cutters, Solderers, & Brazers 1,690 14.65 12.68 14.72 16.36 30,475 1,650 14.17 12.24 51-6011 Laundry & Dry-Cleaning Workers 160 5.93 5.72 6.13 6.55 12,344 160 5.76 5.55 51-6021 Pressers, Textile, Garment, & Related 

Material 

* 6.03 5.73 6.12 6.56 12,545 * 5.84 5.64 

51-8031 Water & Liquid Waste Treatment Plant & 

System Operator 

 130 11.06 8.67 10.85 12.38 23,015 130 10.21 8.19 

51-8093 Petroleum Pump System Operator, Refinery 

Operator, & Gaugers 

 810 17.87 15.20 16.99 20.05 37,167 * 17.26 14.70 

51-9061 Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers, and 

Weighers 

 140 16.40 12.31 15.55 21.61 34,110 130 15.78 12.02 

51-9122 Painters, Transportation Equipment 110 13.34 10.74 12.42 15.10 27,745 110 12.95 10.43 51-9198 Helpers--Production Workers * 7.38 6.01 6.64 8.41 15,367 * 7.25 5.81 51-9199 Production Workers, All Other * 12.28 6.30 12.03 18.61 25,530 * 12.02 6.09 
A-15

Table A-1 

Regional Labor Market Area and Houma Metropolitan Statistical Area—1999 Wage Comparison 

 RLMA 3 Houma M

SOCCode Occupational Title Total # Empl. Mean ($/hour) Entry ($/hour) Median ($/hour) Experience ($/hour) Annual $ Total # Empl. Mean ($/hour) Entry ($/hour) M

($

Transportation and Material Moving Occupations 53-1021 First-Line Supervisors/ 

Managers of Helpers, Laborers, & Material Movers, Hand 

 60 13.63 9.48 12.28 17.40 28,353 50 12.84 8.84 

53-1031 First-Line Supervisors/ 

Managers of Transportation & MaterialMoving Machine & Vehicle 

 80 18.42 15.94 18.47 20.59 38,306 80 17.76 15.38 

53-3021 Bus Drivers, Transit & Intercity 60 8.17 6.44 8.37 9.85 16,989 60 7.87 6.22 53-3022 Bus Drivers, School * 8.54 6.26 7.80 9.85 17,768 * 8.05 5.99 53-3031 Driver/Sales Workers * 11.26 9.71 10.95 13.10 23,433 * 10.86 9.36 53-3032 Truck Drivers, Heavy & Tractor-Trailer 760 9.71 7.89 8.78 10.79 20,184 760 9.36 7.61 53-3033 Truck Drivers, Light or Delivery Services 530 10.21 7.46 8.59 10.95 21,246 520 9.90 7.18 53-3041 Taxi Drivers & Chauffeurs 110 6.71 5.85 6.39 7.63 13,945 80 6.49 5.77 53-3099 Motor Vehicle Operator, All Other * 10.79 6.71 10.41 14.61 22,458 * 10.41 6.47 53-4031 Railroad Conductors & Yardmasters * 6.87 6.17 7.00 7.90 14,307 N/A N/A N/A 53-5011 Sailors & Marine Oilers 1,380 10.80 8.48 10.83 12.81 22,469 1,380 10.42 8.18 53-5021 Captains, Mates, & Pilots of Water Vessels 1,590 22.49 18.34 22.16 25.94 46,785 1,590 21.65 17.67 53-5022 Motorboat Operators * 17.67 13.72 15.86 18.91 36,762 * 17.05 13.23 53-5099 All Other Water Transportation Workers * 11.68 10.32 12.02 13.09 24,288 * 11.26 9.95 53-7021 Crane & Tower Operators 110 14.65 12.83 14.50 16.18 30,474 110 14.28 12.43 53-7051 Industrial Truck & Tractor Operators 210 9.52 7.97 9.34 11.11 19,798 170 9.17 7.69 53-7061 Cleaners of Vehicles & Equipment 310 7.01 5.96 6.53 7.52 14,587 310 6.72 5.78 53-7062 Laborers & Freight, Stock, & Material 

Movers, Hand 

 1,220 8.32 7.25 8.20 9.53 17,312 1,200 8.02 7.00 

53-7064 Packers & Packagers, Hand 430 6.49 5.91 6.38 6.92 13,505 430 6.23 5.71 53-7072 Pump Operators, Except Wellhead Pumpers 120 16.12 8.65 19.11 23.32 33,545 120 15.55 8.34 SOC Code – Standard occupational classification. * Suppressed - Relative standard error for employment greater than 50 percent. ** Hourly wages for occupation where workers typically work fewer than 2,080 hours per year not available. 
A-16

Table A-2 

Houma Metropolitan Statistical Area—1998, Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Survey 

(Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, website: http://stats.bls.gov/oeshome.htm) 

Occupation 

Code 

Occupation 

Title 

Total 

Employment 

Median 

Wage/Hour($) 

Wag

10000 Managerial and Administrative Occupations 13000 Staff and Administrative Specialty Managerial Occupations 13002 Financial Managers 260 20.05 13005 Personnel, Training, and Labor Relations Managers 90 22.29 13008 Purchasing Managers 120 16.03 13011 Marketing, Advertising, and Public Relations Managers 220 31.84 13014 Administrative Services Managers 170 13.91 13017 Engineering, Mathematical, and Natural Sciences Managers 110 28.97 15000 Line and Middle Management Industry Specific Managerial Occupations 15005 Education Administrators 150 24.48 15008 Medicine and Health Services Managers 200 22.57 15011 Property and Real Estate Managers and Administrators 90 10.36 15014 Industrial Production Managers 80 22.38 15017 Construction Managers 80 19.47 15021 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Well Drilling Managers 40 32.36 15023 Communications, Transportation, and Utilities Operations Managers 110 25.85 15026 Food Service and Lodging Managers 130 14.12 19000 Other Managerial and Administrative Occupations 19002 

Public Administration Chief Executives, Legislators, and General Administrators 60 17.70 

19005 General Managers and Top Executives 2,250 20.87 19999 All Other Managers and Administrators 400 20.92 20000 Professional, Paraprofessional, and Technical Occupations 21000 Management Support Occupations 21108 Loan Officers and Counselors 100 12.46 21114 Accountants and Auditors 390 15.38 21199 All Other Financial Specialists 40 12.84 21305 Purchasing Agents and Buyers, Farm Products (*) 11.29 
A-17

Table A-2 

Houma Metropolitan Statistical Area—1998, Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Survey 

(Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, website: http://stats.bls.gov/oeshome.htm) 

Occupation 

Code 

Occupation 

Title 

Total 

Employment 

Median 

Wage/Hour($) 

Wag

21308 Purchasing Agents, Except Wholesale, Retail, and Farm Products 110 14.58 21511 Personnel, Training, and Labor Relations Specialists 60 16.01 21902 Cost Estimators 60 18.93 21999 All Other Management Support Workers (*) 14.07 22000 Engineers and Related Occupations 22121 Civil Engineers, Including Traffic 30 22.38 22135 Mechanical Engineers 50 25.04 22138 Marine Engineers 40 12.27 22199 All Other Engineers 230 18.75 22311 Surveyors and Mapping Scientists 140 9.10 22502 Civil Engineering Technicians and Technologists 50 12.82 22505 Electrical and Electronic Engineering Technicians and Technologists 100 13.16 22514 Drafters 170 12.66 22521 Surveying and Mapping Technicians 100 13.12 24000 Natural Scientists and Related Occupations 24105 Chemists, Except Biochemists (*) 14.66 24511 Petroleum Technicians and Technologists 30 20.85 25000 Computer, Mathematical, Operations Research, and Related Occupations 25102 Systems Analysts, Electronic Data Processing 30 17.71 25104 Computer Support Specialists 50 15.42 25105 Computer Programmers 70 17.67 27000 Social Scientists and Other Social, Recreational, and Religious Occupations 27302 Social Workers, Medical and Psychiatric 60 14.08 27307 Residential Counselors 50 6.10 27308 Human Services Workers 190 8.16 28000 Law 28108 Lawyers 300 27.57 28305 Paralegal Personnel 30 11.55 
A-18

Table A-2 

Houma Metropolitan Statistical Area—1998, Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Survey 

(Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, website: http://stats.bls.gov/oeshome.htm) 

Occupation 

Code 

Occupation 

Title 

Total 

Employment 

Median 

Wage/Hour($) 

Wag

31000 Teachers, Educators, Librarians, and Related Occupations 31114 Nursing Instructors, Postsecondary (*) * 31303 Teachers, Preschool 70 6.09 31314 Teachers and Instructors, Vocational Education and Training 250 8.87 31321 Instructors and Coaches, Sports and Physical Training 80 6.38 31399 All Other Teachers and Instructors (*) * 31502 Librarians, Professional 90 20.93 31514 Vocational and Educational Counselors 80 22.86 31517 Instructional Coordinators 40 20.51 32000 Health Practitioners, Technologists, Technicians, and Related Health Occupations 32102 Physicians and Surgeons 180 # 32105 Dentists 60 28.26 32302 Respiratory Therapists 90 14.11 32308 Physical Therapists 60 36.30 32314 Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists 60 18.93 32502 Registered Nurses 1,200 17.91 32505 Licensed Practical Nurses 590 10.46 32508 Emergency Medical Technicians 70 9.36 32517 Pharmacists 120 24.36 32519 Pharmacy Technicians and Aides 60 7.37 32523 Dietetic Technicians (*) 7.38 32902 Medical and Clinical Laboratory Technologists 100 16.54 32905 Medical and Clinical Laboratory Technicians 70 11.21 32908 Dental Hygienists 40 12.60 32911 Medical Records Technicians 40 8.05 32919 Radiologic Technologists 80 12.91 32928 Surgical Technologists and Technicians 30 9.60 32999 All Other Health Professionals, Paraprofessionals, and Technicians 250 11.56 
A-19

Table A-2 

Houma Metropolitan Statistical Area—1998, Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Survey 

(Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, website: http://stats.bls.gov/oeshome.htm) 

Occupation 

Code 

Occupation 

Title 

Total 

Employment 

Median 

Wage/Hour($) 

Wag

34000 Writers, Artists, Entertainers, Athletes, and Related Occupations 34023 Photographers 30 6.18 34044 Merchandise Displayers and Window Trimmers 30 8.37 39000 Other Professional, Paraprofessional, and Technical Occupations 39999 All Other Professional, Paraprofessional, and Technical Workers 200 14.19 40000 Sales and Related Occupations 41000 First Line Supervisors and Manager/Supervisors - Sales Workers 41002 

First-Line Supervisors and Managers/Supervisors - Sales and Related Workers 980 11.18 

43000 Sales Occupations, Services 43002 Sales Agents and Placers, Insurance 150 16.31 43017 Sales Agents, Selected Business Services 110 16.19 49000 Merchandise, Products, and Other Sales and Sales Related Occupations 49002 Sales Engineers 30 24.66 49005 

Sales Representatives, Scientific and Related Products and Services, Except Retail 150 16.71 

49008 

Sales Representatives, Except Retail and Scientific and Related Products and Services 570 17.66 

49011 Salespersons, Retail 1,890 6.51 49014 Salespersons, Parts 200 9.75 49017 Counter and Rental Clerks 250 6.56 49021 Stock Clerks, Sales Floor 1,020 6.33 49023 Cashiers 2,290 6.06 49999 All Other Sales and Related Workers 310 7.71 50000 Clerical and Administrative Support Occupations 51000 First Line Supervisors and Manager/Supervisors - Clerical Workers 51002 

First-Line Supervisors and Managers/Supervisors - Clerical and Administrative Support Workers 780 11.55 

53000 Industry Specific Clerical and Administrative Support Occupations 
A-20

Table A-2 

Houma Metropolitan Statistical Area—1998, Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Survey 

(Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, website: http://stats.bls.gov/oeshome.htm) 

Occupation 

Code 

Occupation 

Title 

Total 

Employment 

Median 

Wage/Hour($) 

Wag

53102 Tellers 400 6.29 53105 New Accounts Clerks 100 7.77 53121 Loan and Credit Clerks 50 8.05 53123 Adjustment Clerks 110 7.28 53311 Insurance Claims Clerks 30 8.29 53314 Insurance Policy Processing Clerks 50 9.45 53508 Bill and Account Collectors 80 8.93 53808 Hotel Desk Clerks 50 6.79 53905 Teacher Aides and Educational Assistants, Clerical 590 9.32 55000 Secretarial and General Office Occupations 55102 Legal Secretaries 170 10.28 55105 Medical Secretaries 130 8.93 55108 Secretaries, Except Legal and Medical 1,510 8.22 55302 Stenographers and/or Court Reporters 30 9.60 55305 Receptionists and Information Clerks 620 7.43 55307 Typists, Including Word Processing 110 7.82 55314 Personnel Clerks, Except Payroll and Timekeeping 70 10.02 55321 File Clerks 70 6.33 55323 Order Clerks, Materials, Merchandise, and Service 110 7.82 55332 Interviewing Clerks, Except Personnel and Social Welfare 50 7.67 55335 Customer Service Representatives, Utilities 80 11.19 55338 Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks 940 9.07 55341 Payroll and Timekeeping Clerks 90 9.64 55344 Billing, Cost, and Rate Clerks 230 8.99 55347 General Office Clerks 1,880 7.41 56000 Electronic Data Processing and Other Office Machine Occupations 56002 Billing, Posting, and Calculating Machine Operators 30 9.25 56011 Computer Operators, Except Peripheral Equipment 30 8.30 
A-21

Table A-2 

Houma Metropolitan Statistical Area—1998, Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Survey 

(Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, website: http://stats.bls.gov/oeshome.htm) 

Occupation 

Code 

Occupation 

Title 

Total 

Employment 

Median 

Wage/Hour($) 

Wag

56017 Data Entry Keyers, Except Composing 80 7.34 57000 Communications, Mail, and Message Distributing Occupations 57102 Switchboard Operators 90 7.12 58000 Material Recording, Scheduling, Dispatching, and Distributing Occupations 58002 Dispatchers, Police, Fire, and Ambulance 40 8.16 58005 Dispatchers, Except Police, Fire, and Ambulance 240 12.67 58008 Production, Planning, and Expediting Clerks 70 11.21 58014 Meter Readers, Utilities 30 10.31 58023 Stock Clerks - Stockroom, Warehouse or Storage Yard 600 7.60 58026 Order Fillers, Wholesale and Retail Sales 30 11.43 58028 Shipping, Receiving, and Traffic Clerks 370 8.75 58099 All Other Material Recording, Scheduling, and Distributing Workers 60 10.28 59000 Other Clerical and Administrative Support Occupations 59999 All Other Clerical and Administrative Support Workers 320 8.73 60000 Service Occupations 61000 First-Line Supervisors and Managers/Supervisors - Service Occupations 61008 Housekeeping Supervisors 50 8.55 61099 All Other Supervisors and Managers/Supervisors - Service Workers 400 8.48 63000 Protective Service Occupations 63014 Police Patrol Officers 90 10.06 63047 Guards and Watch Guards 150 6.58 63099 All Other Protective Service Workers 70 10.56 65000 Food and Beverage Preparation and Service Occupations 65002 Hosts and Hostesses, Restaurant, Lounge, or Coffee Shop 70 5.79 65005 Bartenders 120 6.63 65008 Waiters and Waitresses 770 5.75 65014 Dining Room and Cafeteria Attendants and Bartender Helpers 50 5.79 65017 Counter Attendants - Lunchroom, Coffee Shop, or Cafeteria (*) 6.15 
A-22

Table A-2 

Houma Metropolitan Statistical Area—1998, Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Survey 

(Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, website: http://stats.bls.gov/oeshome.htm) 

Occupation 

Code 

Occupation 

Title 

Total 

Employment 

Median 

Wage/Hour($) 

Wag

65021 Bakers, Bread and Pastry 160 5.92 65023 Butchers and Meat Cutters 150 8.65 65026 Cooks, Restaurant 250 5.96 65028 Cooks, Institution or Cafeteria 560 8.85 65032 Cooks, Fast Food 490 5.73 65035 Cooks, Short Order (*) 5.87 65038 Food Preparation Workers 880 5.90 65041 Combined Food Preparation and Service Workers 890 5.70 65099 All Other Food Service Workers 440 7.38 66000 Health Service and Related Occupations 66002 Dental Assistants 120 7.68 66005 Medical Assistants 110 8.96 66008 Nursing Aides, Orderlies, and Attendants 790 6.06 66011 Home Health Aides 610 6.20 66099 All Other Health Service Workers 100 7.03 67000 Cleaning and Building Service Occupations 67002 Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners 520 6.58 67005 Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners 1,090 6.11 67099 All Other Cleaning and Building Service Workers 130 6.46 68000 Personal Service Occupations 68005 Hairdressers, Hairstylists, and Cosmetologists 100 5.74 68014 Amusement and Recreation Attendants 90 6.20 68038 Child Care Workers 170 5.75 69000 Other Service Occupations 69999 All Other Service Workers 130 6.04 70000 Agricultural, Forestry, Fishing, and Related Occupations 79000 Other Agricultural, Forestry, Fishing, and Related Occupations 79011 Graders and Sorters, Agricultural Products 40 5.75 
A-23

Table A-2 

Houma Metropolitan Statistical Area—1998, Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Survey 

(Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, website: http://stats.bls.gov/oeshome.htm) 

Occupation 

Code 

Occupation 

Title 

Total 

Employment 

Median 

Wage/Hour($) 

Wag

79041 Laborers, Landscaping and Groundskeeping 360 6.73 79806 Veterinary Assistants 30 6.02 80000 Production, Construction, Operating, Maintenance, and Material Handling Occupations 81000 First-Line Supervisors and Managers/Supervisors - Production, Construction, Maintenance, and Related Workers 81002 

First-Line Supervisors and Managers/Supervisors - Mechanics, Installers, and Repairers 280 15.98 

81005 

First-Line Supervisors and Managers/Supervisors - Construction Trades and Extractive Workers 420 26.09 

81008 

First-Line Supervisors and Managers/Supervisors - Production and Operating Workers 200 18.24 

81011 

First-Line Supervisors and Managers/Supervisors - Transportation and Material-Moving Machine and Vehicle Operators 220 16.45 

81017 

First-Line Supervisors and Managers/Supervisors - Helpers, Laborers, and Material Movers, Hand 150 14.22 

81099 

All Other First-Line Supervisors and Managers/Supervisors - Production, Construction, Maintenance, and Related Workers 390 19.36 

83000 Inspectors and Related Occupations 83002 Precision Inspectors, Testers, and Graders 70 14.56 83005 

Production Inspectors, Testers, Graders, Sorters, Samplers, and Weighers 110 11.48 

85000 Mechanics, Installers, and Repairers 85110 Machinery Maintenance Mechanics 480 14.72 85116 Machinery Maintenance Mechanics, Marine Equipment 150 12.82 85128 Machinery Maintenance Workers 50 9.45 85132 Maintenance Repairers, General Utility 1,040 8.96 85302 Automotive Mechanics 440 11.84 85305 Automotive Body and Related Repairers 60 12.80 85311 Bus and Truck Mechanics and Diesel Engine Specialists 180 12.08 85314 Mobile Heavy Equipment Mechanics, Except Engines 170 12.10 
A-24

Table A-2 

Houma Metropolitan Statistical Area—1998, Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Survey 

(Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, website: http://stats.bls.gov/oeshome.htm) 

Occupation 

Code 

Occupation 

Title 

Total 

Employment 

Median 

Wage/Hour($) 

Wag

85702 Telephone and Cable Television Line Installers and Repairers 100 14.18 85717 Electronics Repairers, Commercial and Industrial Equipment 50 14.38 85902 Heating, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration Mechanics and Installers 120 11.60 85935 Riggers 180 9.31 85953 Tire Repairers and Changers 50 5.84 85999 All Other Mechanics, Installers, and Repairers 450 11.50 87000 Construction Trades and Extractive Occupations 87102 Carpenters 430 12.26 87105 Ceiling Tile Installers and Acoustical Carpenters (*) 11.82 87202 Electricians 410 14.59 87311 Concrete and Terrazzo Finishers 30 8.17 87402 Painters and Paperhangers, Construction and Maintenance 340 10.87 87502 Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters 310 14.26 87508 Pipelayers 60 7.88 87917 Service Unit Operators 220 11.16 87999 All Other Construction and Extractive Workers, Except Helpers 30 10.08 89000 Precision Production Occupations 89108 Machinists 580 13.95 89121 Shipfitters 380 13.53 89132 Sheet Metal Workers 30 9.43 89999 All Other Precision Workers 230 10.41 91000 Machine Setters, Set-Up Operators, Operators, and Tenders 91502 

Numerical Control Machine Tool Operators and Tenders, Metal and Plastic 100 12.07 

92726 

Laundry and Dry-Cleaning Machine Operators and Tenders, Except Pressing 100 6.62 

92951 Coating, Painting, and Spraying Machine Setters and Set-Up Operators 80 11.00 92974 Packaging and Filling Machine Operators and Tenders 80 7.70 
A-25

Table A-2 

Houma Metropolitan Statistical Area—1998, Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Survey 

(Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, website: http://stats.bls.gov/oeshome.htm) 

Occupation 

Code 

Occupation 

Title 

Total 

Employment 

Median 

Wage/Hour($) 

Wag

92998 All Other Machine Operators and Tenders 1,250 15.97 93000 Hand Occupations, Including Assemblers and Fabricators 93914 Welders and Cutters 2,550 13.69 93956 

Assemblers and Fabricators, Except Machine, Electrical, Electronic, 

and Precision 410 11.58 

93999 All Other Hand Workers 1,250 12.31 95000 Plant and System Occupations 95002 Water and Liquid Waste Treatment Plant and System Operators 120 9.31 95017 Gaugers (*) 16.28 95099 All Other Plant and System Operators 260 14.82 97000 Transportation and Material-Moving Machine and Vehicle Operators 97102 Truck Drivers, Heavy or Tractor-Trailer 940 10.37 97105 Truck Drivers, Light, Include Delivery and Route Workers 810 7.27 97117 Driver/Sales Workers 110 11.10 97502 Captains, Water Vessel 1,340 22.21 97505 Mates, Ship, Boat, and Barge 370 18.35 97514 Able Seamen 470 12.01 97517 Ordinary Seamen and Marine Oilers 930 10.09 97805 Service Station Attendants (*) 10.29 97899 All Other Transportation and Related Workers 180 15.24 97923 Excavating and Loading Machine Operators 60 10.67 97938 Grader, Bulldozer, and Scraper Operators 100 11.18 97944 Crane and Tower Operators 320 13.66 97947 Industrial Truck and Tractor Operators 190 8.50 97989 All Other Material-Moving Equipment Operators 100 9.55 98000 Helpers, Laborers, and Material Movers, Hand 98102 Helpers, Mechanics and Repairers 500 7.56 98312 Helpers, Carpenters and Related Workers 90 7.88 
A-26

Table A-2 

Houma Metropolitan Statistical Area—1998, Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Survey 

(Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, website: http://stats.bls.gov/oeshome.htm) 

Occupation 

Code 

Occupation 

Title 

Total 

Employment 

Median 

Wage/Hour($) 

Wag

98313 Helpers, Electricians and Power-Line Transmission Installers 30 8.26 98315 Helpers, Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters 160 8.93 98319 Helpers, All Other Construction Trades Workers 130 8.48 98502 Machine Feeders and Offbearers (*) 7.48 98799 All Other Freight, Stock, and Material Movers, Hand 340 7.14 98902 Hand Packers and Packagers 320 5.94 98905 Vehicle Washers and Equipment Cleaners 210 6.07 98999 All Other Helpers, Laborers, and Material Movers, Hand 2,000 7.81 

Occupation Code - a unique, five-digit numerical identifier for each OES occupation. 

Occupation Title - a descriptive title that corresponds to the OES code. 

Total Employment - the estimated total occupational employment; rounded to nearest 10 (excludes self-employed). Median Wage/Hour - estimated median hourly wage; the 50% percentile wage. Mean Wage/Hour - estimated mean hourly wage; an occupation's total wages divided by its employment (the average wage). 

Annual Wage - estimated mean annual wage; the estimated mean hourly wage of an occupation multiplied by 2,080 hours. 
A-27 

Table A-3 

 

Houma Metropolitan Area—Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes 

(Data are from the1990 Census special tabulation of occupation by industry. 

These counts are for all industries.) 

Number in 

Experienced 

Labor Force 

Census 

Occupation 

Code 

Occupation Title 

36 3 Legislators 

8 4 Chief Executives and General Administrators, Public Administration 

149 5 Administrators and Officials, Public Administration 

45 6 Administrators, Protective Service 

369 7 Financial Managers 

151 8 Personnel and Labor Relations Managers 

36 9 Purchasing Managers 

204 13 Managers, Marketing, Advertising, and Public Relations 

449 14 Administrators, Education and Related Fields 

77 15 Managers, Medicine and Health 

19 16 Postmasters and Mail Superintendents 

726 17 Managers, Food Serving and Lodging Establishments 

184 18 Managers, Properties and Real Estate 

41 19 Funeral Directors 

233 21 Managers, Service Organizations, n.e.c. 

2,545 22 Managers and Administrators, n.e.c. 

523 23 Accountants and Auditors 

17 24 Underwriters 

241 25 Other Financial Officers 

51 26 Management Analysts 

208 27 Personnel, Training, and Labor Relations Specialists 

113 29 Buyers, Wholesale and Retail Trade (except farm products) 

191 33 Purchasing Agents and Buyers 

71 35 Construction Inspectors 

84 36 Inspectors and Compliance Officers (except construction) 

68 37 Management Related Occupations, n.e.c. 

16 43 Architects 

6 45 Metallurgical and Materials Engineers 

9 46 Mining Engineers 

209 47 Petroleum Engineers 

15 48 Chemical Engineers 

126 53 Civil Engineers 

12 54 Agricultural Engineers 

43 55 Electrical and Electronic Engineers 

45 56 Industrial Engineers 

27 57 Mechanical Engineers 

120 58 Marine and Naval Architects 

49 59 Engineers, n.e.c. 

17 63 Surveyors and Mapping Scientists 

31 64 Computer Systems Analysts and Scientists 
A-28 

Table A-3 

 

Houma Metropolitan Area—Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes 

(Data are from the1990 Census special tabulation of occupation by industry. 

These counts are for all industries.) 

Number in 

Experienced 

Labor Force 

Census 

Occupation 

Code 

Occupation Title 

20 65 Operations and Systems Researchers and Analysts 

12 67 Statisticians 

20 73 Chemists, Except Biochemists 

15 75 Geologists and Geodesists 

28 77 Agricultural and Food Scientists 

33 78 Biological and Life Scientists 

193 84 Physicians 

121 85 Dentists 

13 86 Veterinarians 

18 87 Optometrists 

32 89 Health Diagnosing Practitioners, n.e.c. 

883 95 Registered Nurses 

90 96 Pharmacists 

59 97 Dietitians 

45 98 Respiratory Therapists 

31 103 Physical Therapists 

52 104 Speech Therapists 

51 105 Therapists, n.e.c. 

13 106 Physicians' Assistants 

10 118 Psychology Teachers 

7 127 Engineering Teachers 

7 134 Health Specialties Teachers 

15 135 Business, Commerce, and Marketing Teachers 

9 137 Art, Drama, and Music Teachers 

8 143 English Teachers 

286 154 Postsecondary Teachers, Subject Not Specified 

104 155 Teachers, Prekindergarten and Kindergarten 

3,265 156 Teachers, Elementary School 

429 157 Teachers, Secondary School 

27 158 Teachers, Special Education 

344 159 Teachers, n.e.c. 

109 163 Counselors, Educational and Vocational 

98 164 Librarians 

9 165 Archivists and Curators 

16 166 Economists 

21 167 Psychologists 

411 174 Social Workers 

50 175 Recreation Workers 

164 176 Clergy 

44 177 Religious Workers, n.e.c. 
A-29 

Table A-3 

 

Houma Metropolitan Area—Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes 

(Data are from the1990 Census special tabulation of occupation by industry. 

These counts are for all industries.) 

Number in 

Experienced 

Labor Force 

Census 

Occupation 

Code 

Occupation Title 

215 178 Lawyers 

9 179 Judges 

18 183 Authors 

208 185 Designers 

38 186 Musicians and Composers 

43 187 Actors and Directors 

20 188 Painters, Sculptors, Craft-Artists, and Artist Printmakers 

30 189 Photographers 

32 193 Dancers 

17 194 Artists, Performers, and Related Workers, n.e.c. 

50 195 Editors and Reporters 

64 197 Public Relations Specialists 

29 198 Announcers 

157 199 Athletes 

239 203 Clinical Laboratory Technologists and Technicians 

29 204 Dental Hygienists 

20 205 Health Record Technologists and Technicians 

110 206 Radiologic Technicians 

323 207 Licensed Practical Nurses 

239 208 Health Technologists and Technicians, n.e.c. 

168 213 Electrical and Electronic Technicians 

5 215 Mechanical Engineering Technicians 

151 216 Engineering Technicians, n.e.c. 

170 217 Drafting Occupations 

56 218 Surveying and Mapping Technicians 

50 223 Biological Technicians 

110 224 Chemical Technicians 

89 225 Science Technicians, n.e.c. 

96 226 Airplane Pilots and Navigators 

19 227 Air Traffic Controllers 

53 228 Broadcast Equipment Operators 

93 229 Computer Programmers 

125 234 Legal Assistants 

277 235 Technicians, n.e.c. 

2,666 243 Supervisors and Proprietors, Sales Occupations 

471 253 Insurance Sales Occupations 

210 254 Real Estate Sales Occupations 

73 255 Securities and Financial Services Sales Occupations 

60 256 Advertising and Related Sales Occupations 

178 257 Sales Occupations, Other Business Services 
A-30 

Table A-3 

 

Houma Metropolitan Area—Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes 

(Data are from the1990 Census special tabulation of occupation by industry. 

These counts are for all industries.) 

Number in 

Experienced 

Labor Force 

Census 

Occupation 

Code 

Occupation Title 

13 258 Sales Engineers 

1,002 259 Sales Representatives, Mining, Manufacturing, and Wholesale 

170 263 Sales Workers, Motor Vehicles and Boats 

273 264 Sales Workers, Apparel 

102 265 Sales Workers, Shoes 

119 266 Sales Workers, Furniture and Home Furnishings 

106 267 Sales Workers, Radio, TV, Hi-Fi, and Appliances 

116 268 Sales Workers, Hardware and Building Supplies 

78 269 Sales Workers, Parts 

1,561 274 Sales Workers, Other Commodities 

144 275 Sales Counter Clerks 

4,047 276 Cashiers 

194 277 Street and Door-To-Door Sales Workers 

107 278 News Vendors 

15 283 Demonstrators, Promoters and Models, Sales 

12 285 Sales Support Occupations, n.e.c. 

221 303 Supervisors, General Office 

24 305 Supervisors, Financial Records Processing 

59 307 Supervisors, Distribution, Scheduling, and Adjusting Clerks 

270 308 Computer Operators 

2,974 313 Secretaries 

55 314 Stenographers 

363 315 Typists 

155 316 Interviewers 

47 317 Hotel Clerks 

31 318 Transportation Ticket and Reservation Agents 

603 319 Receptionists 

113 323 Information Clerks, n.e.c. 

8 325 Classified-Ad Clerks 

99 327 Order Clerks 

45 328 Personnel Clerks (except payroll and timekeeping) 

55 329 Library Clerks 

147 335 File Clerks 

45 336 Records Clerks 

1,400 337 Bookkeepers, Accounting and Auditing Clerks 

56 338 Payroll and Timekeeping Clerks 

61 339 Billing Clerks 

52 343 Cost and Rate Clerks 

7 344 Billing, Posting, and Calculating Machine Operators 

156 348 Telephone Operators 
A-31 

Table A-3 

 

Houma Metropolitan Area—Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes 

(Data are from the1990 Census special tabulation of occupation by industry. 

These counts are for all industries.) 

Number in 

Experienced 

Labor Force 

Census 

Occupation 

Code 

Occupation Title 

12 353 Communications Equipment Operators, n.e.c. 

126 354 Postal Clerks (except mail carriers) 

134 355 Mail Carriers, Postal Service 

58 356 Mail Clerks (excluding postal service) 

118 357 Messengers 

235 359 Dispatchers 

101 363 Production Coordinators 

187 364 Traffic, Shipping and Receiving Clerks 

521 365 Stock and Inventory Clerks 

72 366 Meter Readers 

61 368 Weighers, Measurers, and Checkers -- Samplers 

105 373 Expediters 

7 374 Material Recording, Scheduling and Distributing Clerks, n.e.c. 

75 375 Insurance Adjusters, Examiners, and Investigators 

210 376 Investigators and Adjusters, Except Insurance 

55 377 Eligibility Clerks, Social Welfare 

151 378 Bill and Account Collectors 

876 379 General Office Clerks 

585 383 Bank Tellers 

168 385 Data-Entry Keyers 

33 386 Statistical Clerks 

187 387 Teachers' Aides 

347 389 Administrative Support Occupations, n.e.c. 

6 404 Cooks, Private Household 

34 405 Housekeepers and Butlers 

172 406 Child Care Workers, Private Household 

342 407 Private Household Cleaners and Servants 

35 414 Supervisors, Police and Detectives 

10 415 Supervisors, Guards 

5 416 Fire Inspection and Fire Prevention Occupations 

81 417 Firefighting Occupations 

292 418 Police and Detectives, Public Service 

185 423 Sheriffs, Bailiffs, and Other Law Enforcement Officers 

67 424 Correctional Institution Officers 

7 425 Crossing Guards 

373 426 Guards and Police (excluding public service) 

67 427 Protective Service Occupations 

182 433 Supervisors, Food Preparation and Service Occupations 

399 434 Bartenders 

1,025 435 Waiters and Waitresses 
A-32 

Table A-3 

 

Houma Metropolitan Area—Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes 

(Data are from the1990 Census special tabulation of occupation by industry. 

These counts are for all industries.) 

Number in 

Experienced 

Labor Force 

Census 

Occupation 

Code 

Occupation Title 

2,207 436 Cooks 

112 438 Food Counter, Fountain and Related Occupations 

319 439 Kitchen Workers, Food Preparation 

211 443 Waiters'/Waitresses' Assistants 

757 444 Miscellaneous Food Preparation Occupations 

120 445 Dental Assistants 

198 446 Health Aids, Except Nursing 

1,595 447 Nursing Aides, Orderlies and Attendants 

86 448 Supervisors, Cleaning and Building Service Workers 

593 449 Maids and Housemen 

1,847 453 Janitors and Cleaners 

70 455 Pest Control Occupations 

41 456 Supervisors, Personal Service Occupations 

105 457 Barbers 

782 458 Hairdressers and Cosmetologists 

89 459 Attendants, Amusement and Recreation Facilities 

20 461 Guides 

6 463 Public Transportation Attendants 

36 465 Welfare Service Aides 

211 466 Family Child Care Providers 

300 467 Early Childhood Teacher's Assistants 

227 468 Child Care Workers, n.e.c. 

155 469 Personal Service Occupations, n.e.c. 

154 473 Farmers, Except Horticultural 

9 474 Horticultural Specialty Farmers 

130 475 Managers, Farms, Except Horticultural 

13 476 Managers, Horticultural Specialty Farms 

9 477 Supervisors, Farm Workers 

326 479 Farm Workers 

31 485 Supervisors, Related Agricultural Occupations 

516 486 Groundskeepers and Gardeners (except farm) 

23 487 Animal Caretakers (except farm) 

85 488 Graders and Sorters, Agricultural Products 

10 494 Supervisors, Forestry and Logging Workers 

26 496 Timber Cutting and Logging Occupations 

236 497 Captains and Other Officers, Fishing Vessels 

1,939 498 Fishers 

32 499 Hunters and Trappers 

312 503 Supervisors, Mechanics and Repairers 

673 505 Automobile Mechanics (except apprentices) 
A-33 

Table A-3 

 

Houma Metropolitan Area—Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes 

(Data are from the1990 Census special tabulation of occupation by industry. 

These counts are for all industries.) 

Number in 

Experienced 

Labor Force 

Census 

Occupation 

Code 

Occupation Title 

413 507 Bus, Truck, and Stationary Engine Mechanics 

34 508 Aircraft Engine Mechanics 

245 509 Small Engine Repairers 

137 514 Automobile Body and Related Repairers 

18 515 Aircraft Mechanics, Excluding Engine 

249 516 Heavy Equipment Mechanics 

25 517 Farm Equipment Mechanics 

314 518 Industrial Machinery Repairers 

35 519 Machinery Maintenance Occupations 

194 523 Electronic Repairers, Communications and Industrial Equipment 

44 525 Data Processing Equipment Repairers 

62 526 Household Appliance and Power Tool Repairers 

53 527 Telephone Line Installers and Repairers 

158 529 Telephone Installers and Repairers 

50 533 Miscellaneous Electrical and Electronic Equipment Repairers 

86 534 Heating, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration Mechanics 

18 535 Camera, Watch, and Musical Instrument Repairers 

12 536 Locksmiths and Safe Repairers 

14 538 Office Machine Repairers 

81 539 Mechanical Controls and Valve Repairers 

7 543 Elevator Installers and Repairers 

295 547 Specified Mechanics and Repairers, n.e.c. 

379 549 Not Specified Mechanics and Repairers 

15 554 Supervisors, Carpenters and Related Work 

17 555 Supervisors, Electricians and Power Transmission Installers 

51 556 Supervisors, Painters, Paperhangers, and Plasterers 

6 557 Supervisors, Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters 

434 558 Supervisors, Construction, n.e.c. 

92 563 Brickmasons and Stonemasons (except apprentices) 

15 565 Tile Setters, Hard and Soft 

70 566 Carpet Installers 

1,009 567 Carpenters (except apprentices) 

25 569 Carpenter Apprentices 

55 573 Drywall Installers 

675 575 Electricians (except apprentices) 

7 576 Electrician Apprentices 

79 577 Electrical Power Installers and Repairers 

566 579 Painters, Construction and Maintenance 

8 583 Paperhangers 

534 585 Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters (except apprentices) 
A-34 

Table A-3 

 

Houma Metropolitan Area—Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes 

(Data are from the1990 Census special tabulation of occupation by industry. 

These counts are for all industries.) 

Number in 

Experienced 

Labor Force 

Census 

Occupation 

Code 

Occupation Title 

112 588 Concrete and Terrazzo Finishers 

26 589 Glaziers 

364 593 Insulation Workers 

12 594 Paving, Surfacing, and Tamping Equipment Operators 

89 595 Roofers 

9 596 Sheetmetal Duct Installers 

39 597 Structural Metal Workers 

20 598 Drillers, Earth 

423 599 Construction Trades, n.e.c. 

907 613 Supervisors, Extractive Occupations 

1,149 614 Drillers, Oil Well 

96 615 Explosives Workers 

192 616 Mining Machine Operators 

448 617 Mining Occupations, n.e.c. 

801 628 Supervisors, Production Occupations 

30 634 Tool and Die Makers (except apprentices) 

18 636 Precision Assemblers, Metal 

493 637 Machinists (except apprentices) 

8 639 Machinist Apprentices 

73 643 Boilermakers 

27 645 Patternmakers and Model Makers, Metal 

333 646 Lay-Out Workers 

15 647 Precious Stones and Metals Workers 

8 649 Engravers, Metal 

79 653 Sheet Metal Workers (except apprentices) 

77 666 Dressmakers 

10 667 Tailors 

34 668 Upholsterers 

6 669 Shoe Repairers 

21 674 Miscellaneous Precision Apparel and Fabric Workers 

35 677 Optical Goods Workers 

38 678 Dental Laboratory and Medical Appliance Technicians 

11 679 Bookbinders 

38 684 Miscellaneous Precision Workers, n.e.c. 

309 686 Butchers and Meat Cutters 

110 687 Bakers 

53 688 Food Batchmakers 

16 689 Inspectors, Testers, and Graders 

6 693 Adjusters and Calibrators 

48 694 Water and Sewage Treatment Plant Operators 
A-35 

Table A-3 

 

Houma Metropolitan Area—Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes 

(Data are from the1990 Census special tabulation of occupation by industry. 

These counts are for all industries.) 

Number in 

Experienced 

Labor Force 

Census 

Occupation 

Code 

Occupation Title 

46 695 Power Plant Operators 

188 696 Stationary Engineers 

232 699 Miscellaneous Plant and System Operators 

11 704 Lathe and Turning Machine Operators 

7 706 Punching and Stamping Press Machine Operators 

24 707 Rolling Machine Operators 

19 708 Drilling and Boring Machine Operators 

15 717 Fabricating Machine Operators, n.e.c. 

9 719 Molding and Casting Machine Operators 

15 723 Metal Plating Machine Operators 

137 725 Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Processing Machine Operators 

8 727 Sawing Machine Operators 

4 728 Shaping and Joining Machine Operators 

17 733 Miscellaneous Woodworking Machine Operators 

44 734 Printing Press Operators 

15 736 Typesetters and Compositors 

51 744 Textile Sewing Machine Operators 

132 747 Pressing Machine Operators 

154 748 Laundering and Dry Cleaning Machine Operators 

147 754 Packaging and Filling Machine Operators 

14 755 Extruding and Forming Machine Operators 

61 756 Mixing and Blending Machine Operators 

41 757 Separating, Filtering, and Clarifying Machine Operators 

48 759 Painting and Paint Spraying Machine Operators 

26 766 Furnace, Kiln, and Oven Operators, Except Food 

6 768 Crushing and Grinding Machine Operators 

79 769 Slicing and Cutting Machine Operators 

61 774 Photographic Process Machine Operators 

350 777 Miscellaneous and Not Specified Machine Operators, n.e.c. 

340 779 Machine Operators, Not Specified 

2,810 783 Welders and Cutters 

191 785 Assemblers 

302 786 Hand Cutting and Trimming Occupations 

8 787 Hand Molding, Casting, and Forming Occupations 

29 789 Hand Painting,Coating, and Decorating Occupations 

6 793 Hand Engraving and Printing Occupations 

252 796 Production Inspectors, Checkers, and Examiners 

76 797 Production Testers 

11 798 Production Samplers and Weighers 

81 799 Graders and Sorters (except agricultural) 
A-36 

Table A-3 

 

Houma Metropolitan Area—Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes 

(Data are from the1990 Census special tabulation of occupation by industry. 

These counts are for all industries.) 

Number in 

Experienced 

Labor Force 

Census 

Occupation 

Code 

Occupation Title 

57 803 Supervisors, Motor Vehicle Operators 

2,422 804 Truck Drivers 

163 806 Driver-Sales Workers 

416 808 Bus Drivers 

58 809 Taxicab Drivers and Chauffeurs 

6 814 Motor Transportation Occupations, n.e.c. 

87 824 Locomotive Operating Occupations 

9 825 Railroad Brake, Signal, and Switch Operators 

2,088 828 Ship Captains and Mates (except fishing boats) 

1,229 829 Sailors and Deckhands 

30 833 Marine Engineers 

159 834 Bridge, Lock and Lighthouse Tenders 

18 843 Supervisors, Material Moving Equipment Operators 

124 844 Operating Engineers 

21 845 Longshore Equipment Operators 

155 848 Hoist and Winch Operators 

360 849 Crane and Tower Operators 

136 853 Excavating and Loading Machine Operators 

42 855 Grader, Dozer, and Scraper Operators 

172 856 Industrial Truck and Tractor Equipment Operators 

300 859 Miscellaneous Material Moving Equipment Operators 

5 864 Supervisors, Handlers, Equipment Cleaners, and Laborers, n.e.c. 

15 865 Helpers, Mechanics and Repairers 

203 866 Helpers, Construction Trades 

16 867 Helpers, Surveyor 

37 868 Helpers, Extractive Occupations 

895 869 Construction Laborers 

122 874 Production Helpers 

83 875 Garbage Collectors 

15 876 Stevedores 

1,120 877 Stock Handlers and Baggers 

7 878 Machine Feeders and Offbearers 

310 883 Freight, Stock, and Material Handlers, n.e.c. 

293 885 Garage and Service Station Related Occupations 

168 887 Vehicle Washers and Equipment Cleaners 

511 888 Hand Packers and Packagers 

1,626 889 Laborers (except construction) 

n.e.c. – not else classified. 
A-37 

Table A-4 

 

Houma Metropolitan Area—Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes 

(Data are from the 1990 Census special tabulation of occupation by industry. These counts are for 

SIC=353, Construction and Related Machinery, and SIC=373, Ship and Boat Building and Repairing.) 

Number in 

Experienced 

Labor Force 

Census 

Occupation 

Code 

Occupation Title 

10 7 Financial Managers 

11 13 Managers, Marketing, Advertising, and Public Relations 

152 22 Managers and Administrators, n.e.c. 

9 25 Other Financial Officers 

4 27 Personnel, Training, and Labor Relations Specialists 

38 33 Purchasing Agents and Buyers 

8 36 Inspectors and Compliance Officers (except construction) 

7 56 Industrial Engineers 

5 57 Mechanical Engineers 

54 58 Marine and Naval Architects 

16 59 Engineers, n.e.c. 

7 64 Computer Systems Analysts and Scientists 

18 213 Electrical and Electronic Technicians 

15 217 Drafting Occupations 

8 226 Airplane Pilots and Navigators 

6 229 Computer Programmers 

8 235 Technicians, n.e.c. 

6 243 Supervisors and Proprietors, Sales Occupations 

20 259 Sales Representatives, Mining, Manufacturing, and Wholesale 

31 308 Computer Operators 

19 313 Secretaries 

8 319 Receptionists 

47 337 Bookkeepers, Accounting and Auditing Clerks 

8 338 Payroll and Timekeeping Clerks 

11 363 Production Coordinators 

74 365 Stock and Inventory Clerks 

6 376 Investigators and Adjusters (except insurance) 

15 379 General Office Clerks 

18 389 Administrative Support Occupations, n.e.c. 

7 417 Firefighting Occupations 

10 426 Guards and Police, Excluding Public Service 

4 436 Cooks 

44 453 Janitors and Cleaners 

7 469 Personal Service Occupations, n.e.c. 

16 507 Bus, Truck, and Stationary Engine Mechanics 

32 509 Small Engine Repairers 

15 516 Heavy Equipment Mechanics 

58 518 Industrial Machinery Repairers 

8 519 Machinery Maintenance Occupations 

8 534 Heating, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration Mechanics 
A-38 

Table A-4 

 

Houma Metropolitan Area—Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes 

(Data are from the 1990 Census special tabulation of occupation by industry. These counts are for 

SIC=353, Construction and Related Machinery, and SIC=373, Ship and Boat Building and Repairing.) 

Number in 

Experienced 

Labor Force 

Census 

Occupation 

Code 

Occupation Title 

6 539 Mechanical Controls and Valve Repairers 

37 547 Specified Mechanics and Repairers, n.e.c. 

10 549 Not Specified Mechanics and Repairers 

5 555 Supervisors, Electricians and Power Transmission Installers 

29 556 Supervisors, Painters, Paperhangers, and Plasterers 

6 557 Supervisors, Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters 

143 567 Carpenters (except apprentices) 

103 575 Electricians (except apprentices) 

73 579 Painters, Construction and Maintenance 

77 585 Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters (except apprentices) 

14 593 Insulation Workers 

7 599 Construction Trades, n.e.c. 

8 613 Supervisors, Extractive Occupations 

8 615 Explosives Workers 

7 617 Mining Occupations, n.e.c. 

309 628 Supervisors, Production Occupations 

7 634 Tool and Die Makers (except apprentices) 

114 637 Machinists (except apprentices) 

8 639 Machinist Apprentices 

9 645 Patternmakers and Model Makers, Metal 

312 646 Lay-Out Workers 

24 653 Sheet Metal Workers (except apprentices) 

5 696 Stationary Engineers 

7 706 Punching and Stamping Press Machine Operators 

9 719 Molding and Casting Machine Operators 

110 725 Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Processing Machine Operators 

14 744 Textile Sewing Machine Operators 

7 747 Pressing Machine Operators 

15 759 Painting and Paint Spraying Machine Operators 

8 774 Photographic Process Machine Operators 

108 777 Miscellaneous and Not Specified Machine Operators, n.e.c. 

49 779 Machine Operators, Not Specified 

849 783 Welders and Cutters 

17 785 Assemblers 

6 789 Hand Painting, Coating, and Decorating Occupations 

21 796 Production Inspectors, Checkers, and Examiners 

8 797 Production Testers 

69 804 Truck Drivers 

51 828 Ship Captains and Mates (except fishing boats) 

16 829 Sailors and Deckhands 
A-39 

Table A-4 

 

Houma Metropolitan Area—Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes 

(Data are from the 1990 Census special tabulation of occupation by industry. These counts are for 

SIC=353, Construction and Related Machinery, and SIC=373, Ship and Boat Building and Repairing.) 

Number in 

Experienced 

Labor Force 

Census 

Occupation 

Code 

Occupation Title 

1 849 Crane and Tower Operators 

24 856 Industrial Truck and Tractor Equipment Operators 

6 859 Miscellaneous Material Moving Equipment Operators 

5 865 Helpers, Mechanics and Repairers 

42 866 Helpers, Construction Trades 

18 869 Construction Laborers 

37 874 Production Helpers 

7 876 Stevedores 

8 883 Freight, Stock, and Material Handlers, n.e.c. 

11 887 Vehicle Washers and Equipment Cleaners 

139 889 Laborers (except construction) 

n.e.c. – not else classified. 
A-40

Table A-5 

Regional Labor Market Area 3—Assumption, Lafourche, and Terrebonne Parishes 

Occupational Employment Statistics 

(Louisiana Department of Labor) 

Occupation 

Code

Occupational 

Title

1998 

Employment

Projected 

2008 

Employment 

Projected 

Total 

Growth 

13002 Financial Managers 340 400 60 13005 Personnel Managers 110 140 30 13008 Purchasing Managers 100 120 20 13011 Marketing & Public Relations Managers 180 220 40 13014 Administrative Services Managers 210 250 40 13017 Engineering, Math & Science Managers 190 250 60 15002 Postmasters & Mail Superintendents 10 10 0 15005 Education Administrators 330 390 60 15008 Health Services Managers 180 240 60 15011 Property & Real Estate Managers 70 90 20 15014 Industrial Production Managers 100 120 20 15017 Construction Managers 120 160 40 15021 Mining & Oil & Gas Drilling Managers 90 100 10 15023 Transportation & Public Utility Managers 160 190 30 15026 Food Service & Lodging Managers 300 370 70 15031 Nursery & Greenhouse Managers * * * 15032 Lawn Service Managers 30 30 0 19002 Government Chief Executives & Legislators 60 70 10 19005 General Managers & Top Executives 2,330 2,850 520 19999 All Other Managers & Administrative 1,330 1,510 180 21102 Underwriters 40 30 -10 21105 Credit Analysts 10 10 0 21108 Loan Officers & Counselors 110 130 20 21111 Tax Preparers 20 20 0 21114 Accountants & Auditors 530 580 50 21117 Budget Analysts 30 30 0 21199 All Other Financial Specialists 90 100 10 
A-41

Table A-5 

Regional Labor Market Area 3—Assumption, Lafourche, and Terrebonne Parishes 

Occupational Employment Statistics 

(Louisiana Department of Labor) 

Occupation 

Code

Occupational 

Title

1998 

Employment

Projected 

2008 

Employment 

Projected 

Total 

Growth 

21302 Buyers Wholesale & Retail Trade 50 60 10 21305 Buyers Farm Products 20 20 0 21308 Purchasing Agents 140 180 40 21502 Claims Takers Unemployment Benefits 10 0 -10 21505 Special Agents Insurance 10 20 10 21508 Employment Interviewers 30 30 0 21511 Personnel Specialists 170 210 40 21902 Cost Estimators 90 120 30 21905 Management Analysts 60 70 10 21908 Construction & Building Inspectors 20 20 0 21911 Enforcement Inspectors (except construction) 90 110 20 21914 Tax Examiners & Collectors 40 60 20 21917 Assessors 10 20 10 21921 Claims Examiners Property/Casualty Insurance 10 10 0 21999 All Other Management Support Workers 460 560 100 22105 Metallurgists & Ceramics & Materials Engineers * * * 22108 Mining Engineers (including safety) 10 20 10 22111 Petroleum Engineers 190 210 20 22114 Chemical Engineers 20 20 0 22117 Nuclear Engineers 10 10 0 22121 Civil Engineers 90 100 10 22123 Agricultural Engineers * * * 22126 Electrical & Electronic Engineers 60 80 20 22127 Computer Engineers 30 60 30 22128 Industrial Engineers (except safety) 70 70 0 22132 Safety Engineers (except mining) 30 40 10 22135 Mechanical Engineers 80 100 20 
A-42

Table A-5 

Regional Labor Market Area 3—Assumption, Lafourche, and Terrebonne Parishes 

Occupational Employment Statistics 

(Louisiana Department of Labor) 

Occupation 

Code

Occupational 

Title

1998 

Employment

Projected 

2008 

Employment 

Projected 

Total 

Growth 

22138 Marine Engineers 30 30 0 22199 All Other Engineers 250 300 50 22302 Architects (except landscape & marine) 20 20 0 22308 Landscape Architects 10 10 0 22311 Surveyors & Mapping Scientists 30 30 0 22502 Civil Engineering Technicians 60 80 20 22505 Electrical & Electronic Engineering Technicians 150 200 50 22508 Industrial Engineering Technicians 10 10 0 22511 Mechanical Engineering Technicians 40 50 10 22514 Drafters 300 330 30 22517 Estimators & Drafters Utilities * * * 22521 Surveying & Mapping Technicians 80 100 20 22599 All Other Engineering Technician 200 230 30 24105 Chemists (except biochemists) 20 30 10 24108 Meteorologists & Space Scientists * * * 24111 Geologists, Geophysicists & Oceanographers 190 150 -40 24199 All Other Physical Scientists 50 50 0 24302 Foresters & Conservation Scientists 10 10 0 24305 Agricultural & Food Scientists 10 10 0 24308 Biological Scientists 20 20 0 24311 Medical Scientists * * * 24399 All Other Life Scientists 10 10 0 24502 Biological, Agricultural & Food Technicians 10 10 0 24505 Chemical Technicians (except health) 20 20 0 24511 Petroleum Technicians 170 170 0 24599 All Other Science Technicians 60 70 10 25102 Systems Analysts 150 260 110 
A-43

Table A-5 

Regional Labor Market Area 3—Assumption, Lafourche, and Terrebonne Parishes 

Occupational Employment Statistics 

(Louisiana Department of Labor) 

Occupation 

Code

Occupational 

Title

1998 

Employment

Projected 

2008 

Employment 

Projected 

Total 

Growth 

25103 Data Base Administrators 20 20 0 25104 Computer Support Specialists 110 180 70 25105 Computer Programmers 160 200 40 25108 Computer Programmer Aides 20 20 0 25111 Numerical Tool/Process Control Programmers 10 10 0 25199 All Other Computer Scientists 10 30 20 25302 Operations/Systems Analysts (except computer) 10 10 0 25310 Mathematical Scientists * * * 25315 Financial Analysts (statistical) * * * 25319 Mathematicians & Math Scientists * * * 27102 Economists & Market Research Analysts 10 10 0 27105 Urban & Regional Planners 20 30 10 27108 Psychologists 50 60 10 27199 All Other Social Scientists 10 10 0 27302 Social Workers (medical & psychiatric) 90 120 30 27305 Social Workers (except medical & psychiatric) 170 240 70 27307 Residential Counselors 60 90 30 27308 Human Services Workers 100 150 50 27311 Recreation Workers 70 90 20 27502 Clergy * * * 27505 Religious Activities & Education Directors * * * 28102 Judges & Magistrates 20 30 10 28105 Administrative Law Judges 20 20 0 28108 Lawyers 310 340 30 28302 Law Clerks 40 40 0 28305 Paralegals 50 80 30 28308 Title Searchers * * * 
A-44

Table A-5 

Regional Labor Market Area 3—Assumption, Lafourche, and Terrebonne Parishes 

Occupational Employment Statistics 

(Louisiana Department of Labor) 

Occupation 

Code

Occupational 

Title

1998 

Employment

Projected 

2008 

Employment 

Projected 

Total 

Growth 

28311 Title Examiners & Abstractors * * * 28399 All Other Legal Assistants 30 40 10 31111 Lecturers * * * 31114 Nursing Instructors 30 30 0 31117 Graduate Assistants (teaching) 100 130 30 31202 Life Sciences Teachers, College 10 10 0 31204 Chemistry Teachers, College * * * 31206 Physics Teachers, College * * * 31209 All Other Physics Science Teachers, Postsecondary * * * 31211 Health Diagnostics Teachers, Postsecondary 40 60 20 31212 Health Specialties Teachers, College 10 10 0 31213 Communications Teachers, Post Secondary 10 10 0 31214 English Language & Literature Teachers, Postsecondary 20 20 0 31215 Foreign Language & Literature Teachers, Postsecondary * * * 31218 Art, Drama & Music Teachers, College 20 30 10 31222 Engineering Teachers, College 40 60 20 31224 Mathematical Sciences Teachers, College 10 20 10 31226 Computer Science Teachers, College 30 40 10 31231 Anthropology & Sociology Teachers, Postsecondary * * * 31233 Economics Teachers, Postsecondary * * * 31234 Geography Teachers, Postsecondary * * * 31235 History Teachers, Postsecondary * * * 31236 Political Science Teachers, Postsecondary * * * 31237 Psychology Teachers, Postsecondary 10 10 0 31242 Business Teachers, Postsecondary 10 20 10 31244 Law Teachers, Postsecondary * * * 31246 Criminal Justice & Law Enforce Teachers, Postsecondary * * * 
A-45

Table A-5 

Regional Labor Market Area 3—Assumption, Lafourche, and Terrebonne Parishes 

Occupational Employment Statistics 

(Louisiana Department of Labor) 

Occupation 

Code

Occupational 

Title

1998 

Employment

Projected 

2008 

Employment 

Projected 

Total 

Growth 

31247 Social Work Teachers, Postsecondary 10 10 0 31252 Education Teachers, Postsecondary 10 20 10 31254 Philosophy and Religion Teachers, Postsecondary * * * 31256 Library Science Teachers, Postsecondary * * * 31258 Parks, Recreation, Leisure, & Fitness Studies Teachers * * * 31262 Home Economic Teachers, Postsecondary * * * 31299 All Other Postsecondary Teachers 290 370 80 31303 Teachers, Preschool 110 140 30 31304 Teachers, Kindergarten 150 170 20 31305 Teachers, Elementary School 1,330 1,550 220 31308 Teachers, Secondary School 740 940 200 31311 Teachers, Special Education 430 600 170 31314 Teachers, Vocational Education & Training 330 370 40 31317 Instructors, Nonvocational Education 50 60 10 31321 Instructors & Coaches-Sports, Physical Training 80 100 20 31399 All Other Teachers, Instructors 300 340 40 31502 Librarians 100 110 10 31505 Library Technical Assistants 40 50 10 31508 Audio Visual Specialists * * * 31511 Curators, Archivists & Museum Technicians * * * 31514 Counselors (vocational & educational) 150 190 40 31517 Education Program Specialists 60 70 10 31521 Teacher Aides (paraprofessional) 210 290 80 32102 Physicians & Surgeons 280 330 50 32105 Dentists 50 50 0 32108 Optometrists 20 20 0 32111 Podiatrists * * * 
A-46

Table A-5 

Regional Labor Market Area 3—Assumption, Lafourche, and Terrebonne Parishes 

Occupational Employment Statistics 

(Louisiana Department of Labor) 

Occupation 

Code

Occupational 

Title

1998 

Employment

Projected 

2008 

Employment 

Projected 

Total 

Growth 

32113 Chiropractors 20 30 10 32114 Veterinarians 10 20 10 32199 All Other Health Practitioners 10 10 0 32302 Respiratory Therapists 60 90 30 32305 Occupational Therapists 40 50 10 32308 Physical Therapists 60 80 20 32311 Corrective & Manual Arts Therapists * * * 32314 Speech Pathologists & Audiologists 70 100 30 32317 Recreational Therapists 20 20 0 32399 All Other Therapists 20 20 0 32502 Registered Nurses 1,230 1,450 220 32505 Licensed Practical Nurses 650 750 100 32508 Emergency Medical Technicians 50 80 30 32511 Physician Assistants 40 50 10 32514 Opticians (dispensing) 50 60 10 32517 Pharmacists 120 120 0 32518 Pharmacy Technicians 70 80 10 32521 Dietitians 30 30 0 32523 Dietetic Technicians 20 30 10 32902 Medical Laboratory Technologists 110 120 10 32905 Medical Laboratory Technicians 100 110 10 32908 Dental Hygienists 60 90 30 32911 Medical Records Technicians 40 60 20 32913 Radiation Therapists 20 20 0 32914 Nuclear Medicine Technologists 10 10 0 32919 Radiologic Technologists 100 110 10 32923 Electroencephalograph Technologists * * * 
A-47

Table A-5 

Regional Labor Market Area 3—Assumption, Lafourche, and Terrebonne Parishes 

Occupational Employment Statistics 

(Louisiana Department of Labor) 

Occupation 

Code

Occupational 

Title

1998 

Employment

Projected 

2008 

Employment 

Projected 

Total 

Growth 

32925 Cardiology Technologists 20 20 0 32926 Electrocardiograph Technicians 10 10 0 32928 Surgical Technologists 40 50 10 32931 Psychiatric Technicians 60 60 0 32951 Veterinary Technicians 10 10 0 32999 All Other Health Professional, Paraprofessional,Technician 430 570 140 34002 Writers & Editors 50 80 30 34005 Technical Writers & Editors 10 10 0 34008 Public Relations Specialists 40 40 0 34011 Reporters 30 30 0 34014 TV & Radio News Broadcasters * * * 34017 Announcers-Radio & TV 30 30 0 34023 Photographers 50 60 10 34026 Camera Operators-TV & Motion Pictures 10 10 0 34028 Broadcast Technicians 20 20 0 34032 Film Editors * * * 34035 Artists & Commercial Artists 60 80 20 34038 Designers (except interior designers) 150 210 60 34041 Interior Designers 30 30 0 34044 Merchandise Displayers & Window Trimmers 20 20 0 34051 Musicians (instrumental) 10 10 0 34053 Dancers & Choreographers * * * 34056 Producers, Directors, Actors & Entertainers 20 30 10 34058 Athletes, Coaches, Umpires & Related Workers 10 20 10 39002 Airplane Dispatchers & Air Traffic Controllers * * * 39005 Traffic Technicians * * * 39008 Radio Operators 10 10 0 
A-48

Table A-5 

Regional Labor Market Area 3—Assumption, Lafourche, and Terrebonne Parishes 

Occupational Employment Statistics 

(Louisiana Department of Labor) 

Occupation 

Code

Occupational 

Title

1998 

Employment

Projected 

2008 

Employment 

Projected 

Total 

Growth 

39011 Funeral Directors & Morticians 10 10 0 39014 Embalmers 10 10 0 39999 All Other Professional, Paraprofessional, Technician 310 370 60 41002 Supervisors-Sales 1,530 1,730 200 43002 Insurance Sales Agents 120 140 20 43005 Real Estate Brokers 10 10 0 43008 Real Estate Sales Agents 60 70 10 43011 Real Estate Appraisers 10 10 0 43014 Securities Sales Representatives 30 40 10 43017 Business Services Sales Representatives 160 220 60 43021 Travel Agents 70 70 0 43023 Advertising Sales Representatives 50 70 20 43099 All Other Service Sales Occupations 50 80 30 49002 Sales Engineers 80 100 20 49005 Sales Representatives-Scientific Product, Services 300 360 60 49008 Sales Representatives (except scientific, retail) 650 800 150 49011 Retail Salespersons 2,340 2,740 400 49014 Parts Salespersons 230 260 30 49017 Counter & Rental Clerks 230 300 70 49021 Stock Clerks-Sales Floor 1,030 1,020 -10 49023 Cashiers 2,710 3,020 310 49026 Telemarketers, Vendors, Door-to-Door Sales Workers 190 270 80 49034 Demonstrators and Promoters 30 30 0 49075 Gaming Change Person 20 20 0 49076 Casino Cage Cashiers 10 10 0 49077 Currency Counting Clerk 10 10 0 49999 All Other Sales & Related Workers 310 370 60 
A-49

Table A-5 

Regional Labor Market Area 3—Assumption, Lafourche, and Terrebonne Parishes 

Occupational Employment Statistics 

(Louisiana Department of Labor) 

Occupation 

Code

Occupational 

Title

1998 

Employment

Projected 

2008 

Employment 

Projected 

Total 

Growth 

51002 Supervisors-Clerical Workers 820 1,010 190 53102 Tellers 340 320 -20 53105 New Accounts Clerks-Banking 60 70 10 53108 Transit Clerks-Banking * * * 53111 Loan Interviewers 10 10 0 53114 Credit Authorizers * * * 53117 Credit Checkers 10 10 0 53121 Loan & Credit Clerks 70 70 0 53123 Adjustment Clerks-Merchandise & Billing 160 210 50 53126 Statement Clerks-Banking * * * 53128 Brokerage Clerks * * * 53302 Insurance Adjusters, Examiners & Investigators 60 80 20 53305 Insurance Appraisers-Auto Damage * * * 53308 Insurance Examining Clerks-Banking 10 10 0 53311 Insurance Claims Clerks 50 60 10 53314 Insurance Policy Processing Clerks 50 60 10 53502 Welfare Eligibility Workers 70 70 0 53505 Investigators (clerical) * * * 53508 Bill & Account Collectors 120 150 30 53702 Court Clerks 100 140 40 53705 Municipal Clerks 40 60 20 53708 License Clerks 30 30 0 53802 Travel Clerks * * * 53805 Reservation & Transportation Ticket Agents 50 50 0 53808 Hotel Desk Clerks 50 60 10 53902 Library Assistants & Bookmobile Drivers 50 70 20 53905 Teacher Aides (clerical) 400 560 160 
A-50

Table A-5 

Regional Labor Market Area 3—Assumption, Lafourche, and Terrebonne Parishes 

Occupational Employment Statistics 

(Louisiana Department of Labor) 

Occupation 

Code

Occupational 

Title

1998 

Employment

Projected 

2008 

Employment 

Projected 

Total 

Growth 

53908 Advertising Clerks * * * 53911 Proofreaders 10 10 0 53914 Real Estate Clerks * * * 55102 Legal Secretaries 140 140 0 55105 Medical Secretaries 90 100 10 55108 Secretaries (except legal & medical) 1,480 1,550 70 55302 Stenos, Court Reporters & Transcriptionists 120 140 20 55305 Receptionists & Information Clerks 590 720 130 55307 Typists (including word processing) 210 180 -30 55314 Personnel Clerks (except payroll) 50 50 0 55317 Correspondence Clerks 10 10 0 55321 File Clerks 110 120 10 55323 Order Clerks 120 130 10 55326 Purchasing Clerks 20 20 0 55328 Statistical Clerks 10 10 0 55332 Interviewing Clerks 60 70 10 55335 Customer Service Representatives-Utilities 60 80 20 55338 Bookkeeping & Accounting Clerks 1,060 1,070 10 55341 Payroll Clerks 100 110 10 55344 Billing, Cost & Rate Clerks 170 200 30 55347 General Office Clerks 2,110 2,570 460 56002 Billing/Posting/Calculating Machine Operators 50 50 0 56005 Duplicating Machine Operators 20 30 10 56008 Mail Machine Operators 10 20 10 56011 Computer Operators (except peripheral equipment) 90 70 -20 56014 Peripheral Computer Equipment Operators 10 10 0 56017 Data Entry Keyers (except printing) 140 160 20 
A-51

Table A-5 

Regional Labor Market Area 3—Assumption, Lafourche, and Terrebonne Parishes 

Occupational Employment Statistics 

(Louisiana Department of Labor) 

Occupation 

Code

Occupational 

Title

1998 

Employment

Projected 

2008 

Employment 

Projected 

Total 

Growth 

56021 Data Entry Keyers (printing) * * * 56099 All Other Office Machine Operators 20 20 0 57102 Switchboard Operators 140 130 -10 57108 Central Office Operators 10 10 0 57111 Telegraph & Teletype Operators * * * 57199 All Other Communication Operator 10 10 0 57302 Mail Clerks, Except Mail Machine, Postal Service 40 50 10 57305 Mail Carriers 70 70 0 57308 Postal Service Clerks 10 10 0 57311 Messengers 60 70 10 58002 Dispatchers-Police, Fire & Ambulance 50 60 10 58005 Dispatchers (except police, fire & ambulance) 270 340 70 58008 Production & Expediting Clerks 150 180 30 58011 Transportation Agents 10 10 0 58014 Meter Readers-Utilities 40 50 10 58017 Weighers, Measurers & Checkers (clerical) 20 20 0 58021 Marking Clerks * * * 58023 Stock Clerks-Stockroom, Warehouse, Storage Yard 650 780 130 58026 Order Fillers-Wholesale & Retail Sales 80 90 10 58028 Shipping, Receiving & Traffic Clerks 390 440 50 58099 All Other Material Workers 50 60 10 59999 All Other Clerical & Admin Support 400 490 90 61002 Supervisors-Fire Fighting 30 40 10 61005 Supervisors-Police & Detectives 40 50 10 61008 Supervisors-Cleaning & Building Services 50 50 0 61075 Boxtender, Dice * * * 61080 Gaming Supervisors 20 20 0 
A-52

Table A-5 

Regional Labor Market Area 3—Assumption, Lafourche, and Terrebonne Parishes 

Occupational Employment Statistics 

(Louisiana Department of Labor) 

Occupation 

Code

Occupational 

Title

1998 

Employment

Projected 

2008 

Employment 

Projected 

Total 

Growth 

61099 All Other Service Supervisors 450 570 120 62021 Cooks-Private Household * * * 62031 Housekeepers & Butlers-Private Household * * * 62041 Child Care Workers-Private Household 50 40 -10 62051 Cleaners & Servants-Private Household 90 120 30 63002 Fire Inspectors 10 20 10 63005 Forest Fire Inspectors & Prevention Specialists 30 30 0 63008 Fire Fighters 110 150 40 63011 Police Detectives 50 70 20 63014 Police Patrol Officers 320 510 190 63017 Correction Officers & Jailers 370 580 210 63021 Parking Enforcement Officers 10 10 0 63023 Bailiffs 10 20 10 63028 Criminal Investigators-Public Service * * * 63032 Sheriffs & Deputy Sheriffs 90 140 50 63035 Private Detectives & Investigators 20 30 10 63038 Railroad & Transit Police * * * 63041 Fish & Game Wardens 10 10 0 63044 Crossing Guards 30 40 10 63047 Security Guards 500 650 150 63099 All Other Protective Service Workers 80 100 20 65002 Hosts & Hostesses-Restaurants & Lounges 110 130 20 65005 Bartenders 220 230 10 65008 Waiters & Waitresses 870 1,100 230 65011 Food Servers (outside) 30 40 10 65014 Dining Room, Cafeteria & Bartender Helpers 160 170 10 65017 Counter Attendants-Coffee Shop or Cafeteria 200 220 20 
A-53

Table A-5 

Regional Labor Market Area 3—Assumption, Lafourche, and Terrebonne Parishes 

Occupational Employment Statistics 

(Louisiana Department of Labor) 

Occupation 

Code

Occupational 

Title

1998 

Employment

Projected 

2008 

Employment 

Projected 

Total 

Growth 

65021 Bakers-Bakery Shops & Restaurants 150 170 20 65023 Meat Cutters 190 170 -20 65026 Cooks-Restaurants 350 450 100 65028 Cooks-Institution or Cafeteria 320 340 20 65032 Cooks-Fast Food 590 760 170 65035 Cooks-Short Order 190 240 50 65038 Food Preparation Workers 710 810 100 65041 Fast Food Workers 810 990 180 65099 All Other Food Service Workers 460 480 20 66002 Dental Assistants 110 150 40 66005 Medical Assistants 140 210 70 66008 Nursing Aides 910 1,110 200 66011 Home Health Aides 210 340 130 66014 Psychiatric Aides 60 70 10 66017 Physical Therapy Assistants & Aides 40 50 10 66021 Occupational Therapy Assistants & Aides 10 10 0 66023 Ambulance Drivers & Attendants 10 10 0 66026 Pharmacy Assistants 30 30 0 66099 All Other Health Service Workers 120 150 30 67002 Maids & Room Cleaners 470 530 60 67005 Janitors 1,260 1,410 150 67008 Pest Controllers & Assistants 60 80 20 67099 All Other Clean, Building Service 160 180 20 68002 Barbers * * * 68005 Cosmetologists 150 180 30 68008 Manicurists 10 10 0 68011 Shampooers 10 10 0 
A-54

Table A-5 

Regional Labor Market Area 3—Assumption, Lafourche, and Terrebonne Parishes 

Occupational Employment Statistics 

(Louisiana Department of Labor) 

Occupation 

Code

Occupational 

Title

1998 

Employment

Projected 

2008 

Employment 

Projected 

Total 

Growth 

68014 Amusement & Recreation Attendants 60 70 10 68017 Guides 20 20 0 68021 Ushers & Ticket Takers 30 40 10 68023 Baggage Porters & Bellhops 30 40 10 68026 Flight Attendants 10 10 0 68028 Transportation Attendants (except flight) 10 10 0 68032 Locker & Dressing Room Attendants * * * 68035 Personal & Home Care Aides 120 180 60 68038 Child Care Workers 390 520 130 68041 Funeral Attendants 10 10 0 68074 Craps (dice) Dealers 20 20 0 68075 Blackjack Dealers 40 40 0 68080 All Other Dealers 20 20 0 68081 Slot Carousel Workers * * * 69999 All Other Service Workers 310 340 30 71005 Farm Managers & Operators 40 40 0 72002 Supervisors-Ag Services, Forestry & Fishing 30 30 0 73008 Log Handling Equipment Operators * * * 73011 Logging Tractor Operators * * * 77002 Captains/Other Officers, Fishing 30 40 10 77008 Fishers 110 130 20 79002 Forest & Conservation Workers 10 10 0 79011 Agricultural Graders & Sorters 10 10 0 79017 Animal Caretakers (except farm) 20 20 0 79021 Farm Equipment Operators 30 20 -10 79033 Pruners 10 10 0 79036 Sprayers/Applicators-Trees & Lawns * * * 
A-55

Table A-5 

Regional Labor Market Area 3—Assumption, Lafourche, and Terrebonne Parishes 

Occupational Employment Statistics 

(Louisiana Department of Labor) 

Occupation 

Code

Occupational 

Title

1998 

Employment

Projected 

2008 

Employment 

Projected 

Total 

Growth 

79041 Laborers, Landscape/Groundkeep 420 550 130 79801 Farm Workers 490 480 -10 79806 Veterinary Assistants 20 30 10 79856 Farm Workers, Food & Fiber Crops 20 20 0 79858 Farm Workers, Farm & Ranch Animals * * * 79999 All Other Agriculture, Forest, Fish 140 150 10 81002 Supervisors-Mechanics, Installers & Repairers 310 380 70 81005 Supervisors-Construction & Extractive Workers 790 1,040 250 81008 Supervisors-Production & Operating Workers 310 380 70 81011 Supervisors-Transportation/Material Moving Equipment Operators 170 200 30 81017 Supervisors-Helpers, Laborers, Material Handler 170 210 40 81099 All Other First Line Supervisors, Prod. Construction Maintenance 400 500 100 83002 Precision Inspectors, Testers & Graders 90 100 10 83005 Production Inspectors, Testers & Graders 150 170 20 83008 Transportation Inspectors 20 20 0 83099 All Other Inspectors, Testers 90 110 20 85110 Industrial Machinery Mechanics 380 460 80 85116 Marine Equipment Mechanics 100 130 30 85118 Machinery Mechanics-Water or Power Plant 40 40 0 85119 All Other Machinery Maint. Mechanics 40 50 10 85123 Millwrights 60 90 30 85128 Machinery Maintenance Workers 100 130 30 85132 Maintenance Repairers (general) 820 930 110 85302 Auto Mechanics 580 750 170 85305 Auto Body Repairers 130 160 30 85308 Motorcycle Repairers 10 10 0 85311 Bus, Truck & Diesel Engine Mechanics 150 190 40 
A-56

Table A-5 

Regional Labor Market Area 3—Assumption, Lafourche, and Terrebonne Parishes 

Occupational Employment Statistics 

(Louisiana Department of Labor) 

Occupation 

Code

Occupational 

Title

1998 

Employment

Projected 

2008 

Employment 

Projected 

Total 

Growth 

85314 Mobile Heavy Equip Mechanics (except engines) 120 160 40 85321 Farm Equipment Mechanics 30 30 0 85323 Aircraft Mechanics 30 30 0 85326 Aircraft Engine Specialists * * * 85328 Small Engine Specialists 20 20 0 85502 Central Telephone Office/Pbx Installers, Repairers 10 10 0 85505 Frame Wirers-Central Telephone Office * * * 85508 Telegraph & Teletype Installers & Repairers * * * 85514 Radio Mechanics * * * 85599 All Other Communications Equip Mechanics 30 40 10 85702 Telephone & Cable TV Line Installers, Repairers 70 100 30 85705 Data Processing Equipment Repairers 10 20 10 85708 Electronic Home Entertainment Equipment Repairers 20 20 0 85711 Electric Home Appliance/Power Tool Repairers 20 30 10 85714 Electric Motor & Transformer Repairers 40 30 -10 85717 Electronics Repairers-Commercial/Indust Equip 30 30 0 85721 Powerhouse, Substation & Relay Electricians * * * 85723 Electrical Power Line Installers & Repairers 60 80 20 85726 Telephone Installers & Repairers 20 10 -10 85728 Electrical Repairers-Transportation Equipment 60 100 40 85799 All Other Electric, Electronic Mechanics 50 70 20 85902 Heating, A/C & Refrigeration Mechanics 190 250 60 85905 Precision Instrument Repairers 30 40 10 85908 Electromedical Equipment Repairers 10 10 0 85911 Electric Meter Installers & Repairers 10 10 0 85914 Camera & Photographic Equipment Repairers 20 20 0 85917 Watchmakers * * * 
A-57

Table A-5 

Regional Labor Market Area 3—Assumption, Lafourche, and Terrebonne Parishes 

Occupational Employment Statistics 

(Louisiana Department of Labor) 

Occupation 

Code

Occupational 

Title

1998 

Employment

Projected 

2008 

Employment 

Projected 

Total 

Growth 

85921 Musical Instrument Repairers & Tuners * * * 85923 Locksmiths & Safe Repairers 10 10 0 85926 Office Machine Repairers 20 30 10 85928 Mechanical Control Installers & Repairers 10 10 0 85932 Elevator Installers & Repairers * * * 85935 Riggers 220 320 100 85938 Mobile Home/Prefab Building Install/Repairers 20 30 10 85944 Gas Appliance Repairers 10 10 0 85947 Coin & Vending Machine Servicers & Repairers 10 10 0 85953 Tire Repairers & Changers 70 80 10 85956 Menders-Garments & Linens * * * 85975 Slot & Amusement Machine Repairers * * * 85999 All Other Mechanics, Installers & Repairers 470 610 140 87102 Carpenters 520 640 120 87105 Ceiling Tile Installers 10 20 10 87108 Drywall Installers 110 140 30 87111 Tapers * * * 87114 Lathers * * * 87202 Electricians 590 770 180 87302 Brickmasons 60 90 30 87305 Stonemasons * * * 87308 Hard Tile Setters 10 20 10 87311 Concrete & Terrazzo Finishers 50 70 20 87314 Reinforcing Metal Workers 10 20 10 87317 Plasterers & Stucco Masons 10 20 10 87402 Painters & Paperhangers Construction 720 910 190 87502 Plumbers & Pipefitters 710 890 180 
A-58

Table A-5 

Regional Labor Market Area 3—Assumption, Lafourche, and Terrebonne Parishes 

Occupational Employment Statistics 

(Louisiana Department of Labor) 

Occupation 

Code

Occupational 

Title

1998 

Employment

Projected 

2008 

Employment 

Projected 

Total 

Growth 

87505 Pipelaying Fitters 20 20 0 87508 Pipelayers 20 30 10 87511 Septic Tank & Sewer Pipe Servicers 10 10 0 87602 Carpet Installers 30 30 0 87605 Floor Layers (except carpet, wood & hard tile) * * * 87608 Floor Sanding Machine Operators * * * 87705 Pile Driver Operators 10 10 0 87708 Paving & Surfacing Equipment Operators 30 50 20 87711 Highway Maintenance Workers 60 80 20 87714 Rail Track Laying Equipment Operators * * * 87802 Insulation Workers 220 290 70 87803 Hazardous Materials Removal Workers 30 40 10 87805 Sheet Metal Duct Installers 10 20 10 87808 Roofers 50 70 20 87811 Glaziers 40 50 10 87814 Structural Metal Workers 30 40 10 87817 Fence Erectors * * * 87899 All Other Construction Workers 130 180 50 87902 Earth Drillers (except oil & gas) 10 10 0 87905 Blasters & Explosives Workers 10 10 0 87911 Rotary Drill Operators, Oil & Gas 210 300 90 87914 Derrick Operators, Oil & Gas 220 310 90 87917 Service Unit Operators, Oil & Gas 210 310 100 87921 Roustabouts 590 670 80 87989 All Other Extractive Workers (except helpers) 260 390 130 87999 All Other Construction & Extractive Workers 70 100 30 89102 Tool & Die Makers 10 10 0 
A-59

Table A-5 

Regional Labor Market Area 3—Assumption, Lafourche, and Terrebonne Parishes 

Occupational Employment Statistics 

(Louisiana Department of Labor) 

Occupation 

Code

Occupational 

Title

1998 

Employment

Projected 

2008 

Employment 

Projected 

Total 

Growth 

89108 Machinists 680 900 220 89111 Tool Grinders, Filers & Sharpeners 10 10 0 89117 Precision Layout Workers, Metal 10 10 0 89121 Shipfitters 230 300 70 89123 Jewelers & Silversmiths 10 10 0 89132 Sheet Metal Workers 160 200 40 89135 Boilermakers 110 150 40 89199 All Other Precision Metal Workers 40 50 10 89302 Pattern & Model Makers, Wood * * * 89308 Wood Machinists * * * 89311 Cabinetmakers & Bench Carpenters 60 80 20 89314 Furniture Finishers 10 10 0 89399 All Other Precision Woodworkers * * * 89505 Custom Tailors & Sewers 30 30 0 89508 Upholsterers 10 10 0 89511 Precision Shoe & Leather Workers * * * 89514 Spotters-Dry Cleaning * * * 89517 Pressers-Delicate Fabrics 10 10 0 89702 Hand Compositors & Typesetters 10 0 -10 89705 Job Printers * * * 89707 Electronic Pagination System Operators * * * 89713 Camera Operators * * * 89717 Strippers-Printing * * * 89718 Platemakers * * * 89719 All Other Lithographic & Photoengraving Workers * * * 89721 Bookbinders * * * 89799 All Other Precision Printing Workers * * * 
A-60

Table A-5 

Regional Labor Market Area 3—Assumption, Lafourche, and Terrebonne Parishes 

Occupational Employment Statistics 

(Louisiana Department of Labor) 

Occupation 

Code

Occupational 

Title

1998 

Employment

Projected 

2008 

Employment 

Projected 

Total 

Growth 

89805 Bakers, Manufacturing 40 20 -20 89808 Food Batchmakers 20 10 -10 89902 Foundry Mold & Core Makers (precision) * * * 89905 Molders & Shapers (except jewelry & foundry) * * * 89911 Detail Design Decorators (precision) 10 10 0 89914 Photographic Process Workers (precision) 10 10 0 89917 Optical Goods Workers (precision) * * * 89921 Dental Laboratory Technicians (precision) 10 10 0 89923 Medical Appliance Makers * * * 89999 All Other Precision Workers 100 120 20 91102 Sawing Machine Setters, Metal/Plastic 10 10 0 91105 Lathe & Turning Machine Setters, Metal/Plastic 20 30 10 91108 Drilling & Boring Machine Setters, Metal/Plastic 10 10 0 91111 Milling & Planing Machine Setters, Metal/Plastic 20 30 10 91114 Grinding/Buffing Machine Setters, Metal/Plastic 10 10 0 91117 Machine Tool Cutting Operators, Metal/Plastic 20 20 0 91302 Punching Machine Setters, Metal/Plastic 10 10 0 91305 Press & Brake Machine Setters, Metal/Plastic 20 20 0 91308 Shear & Slitter Machine Setters, Metal/Plastic 10 10 0 91311 Extruding Machine Setters, Metal/Plastic * * * 91314 Rolling Machine Setters, Metal/Plastic * * * 91317 Forging Machine Setters, Metal/Plastic 20 20 0 91321 Machine Forming Operators, Metal/Plastic 40 40 0 91502 Numerical Control Machine Tool Operators, Metal/Plastic 40 70 30 91505 Combination Machine Tool Setters, Metal/Plastic 10 10 0 91508 Combination Machine Tool Operators, Metal/Plastic 20 30 10 91702 Welding Machine Setters 10 10 0 
A-61

Table A-5 

Regional Labor Market Area 3—Assumption, Lafourche, and Terrebonne Parishes 

Occupational Employment Statistics 

(Louisiana Department of Labor) 

Occupation 

Code

Occupational 

Title

1998 

Employment

Projected 

2008 

Employment 

Projected 

Total 

Growth 

91705 Welding Machine Operators 120 160 40 91714 Metal Fabricators-Structural Metal Products 50 70 20 91902 Plastic Molding Machine Setters * * * 91905 Plastic Molding Machine Operators * * * 91908 Metal Molding & Casting Machine Setters 40 50 10 91911 Metal Molding & Casting Machine Operators 10 10 0 91917 Electrolytic Plating Machine Setters, Metal/Plastic 10 20 10 91921 Electrolytic Plating Machine Operators, Metal/Plastic * * * 91923 Nonelectrolytic Plating Machine Setters, Metal/Plastic * * * 91926 Nonelectrolytic Plating Machine Operators, Metal/Plastic * * * 91932 Heat Treating Machine Operators, Metal/Plastic * * * 91935 Furnace Operators & Tenders * * * 92197 All Other Metal & Plastic Machine Setters/Operators * * * 92198 All Other Metal/Plastic Operators/Tenders 20 30 10 92308 Sawing Machine Operators & Tenders * * * 92512 Offset Lithographic Press Setters * * * 92515 Letterpress Setters * * * 92519 All Other Printing Press Setters/Operators * * * 92524 Screen Printing Machine Setters 10 10 0 92525 Bindery Machine Setters * * * 92541 Typesetting & Composing Machine Operators * * * 92543 Printing Press Operators 30 40 10 92545 Photoengraving & Lithographic Machine Operators * * * 92546 Bindery Machine Operators 10 20 10 92549 All Other Printing, Binding, Related * * * 92717 Sewing Machine Operators-Garment 10 10 0 92721 Sewing Machine Operators-Non-Garment 20 20 0 
A-62

Table A-5 

Regional Labor Market Area 3—Assumption, Lafourche, and Terrebonne Parishes 

Occupational Employment Statistics 

(Louisiana Department of Labor) 

Occupation 

Code

Occupational 

Title

1998 

Employment

Projected 

2008 

Employment 

Projected 

Total 

Growth 

92726 Laundry & Dry-cleaning Machine Operators 80 90 10 92728 Pressing Machine Operators-Textiles/Garments 20 30 10 92905 Motion Picture Projectionists * * * 92908 Photographic Processing Machine Operators 20 20 0 92914 Paper Goods Machine Setters 10 10 0 92917 Cooking Machine Operators-Food/Tobacco 10 10 0 92921 Roasting/Drying Machine Operators-Food/Tobacco 10 10 0 92923 Furnace, Kiln, Oven & Kettle Operators 10 10 0 92926 Boiler Operators & Tenders (low pressure) 10 10 0 92935 Chemical Equipment Controllers & Operators * * * 92938 Chemical Equipment Tenders * * * 92941 Cutting & Slicing Machine Setters * * * 92944 Cutting & Slicing Machine Operators * * * 92947 Painters-Transportation Equipment 40 50 10 92951 Coating & Painting Machine Setters 40 60 20 92953 Coating & Painting Machine Operators 80 110 30 92958 Cleaning/Pickling Equipment Operators 30 40 10 92962 Separating & Filtering Machine Operators 50 40 -10 92965 Crushing/Grinding/Mixing Machine Operators 30 20 -10 92971 Extruding & Forming Machine Operators 20 20 0 92974 Packaging & Filling Machine Operators 120 100 -20 92997 All Other Machine Setters/Operators 60 60 0 92998 All Other Machine Operators 610 790 180 93102 Aircraft Structure Assemblers (precision) * * * 93105 Machine Builders/Precision Machine Assemblers 20 30 10 93108 Structural Metal Fitters (precision) 210 230 20 93111 Electromechanical Equipment Assemblers (precision) 10 10 0 
A-63

Table A-5 

Regional Labor Market Area 3—Assumption, Lafourche, and Terrebonne Parishes 

Occupational Employment Statistics 

(Louisiana Department of Labor) 

Occupation 

Code

Occupational 

Title

1998 

Employment

Projected 

2008 

Employment 

Projected 

Total 

Growth 

93114 Electrical & Electronic Assemblers (precision) 20 20 0 93197 All Other Precision Assemblers 10 10 0 93902 Machine Assemblers 30 40 10 93905 Electrical & Electronic Assemblers * * * 93911 Glaziers-Manufacturing 10 20 10 93914 Welders & Cutters 2,150 2,770 620 93917 Solderers & Brazers 10 20 10 93921 Pressers (hand) * * * 93923 Sewers (hand) * * * 93935 Cannery Workers 90 40 -50 93938 Meat, Poultry & Fish Cutters (hand) 40 20 -20 93944 Molders & Casters (hand) * * * 93947 Painting, Coating & Decorating Workers (hand) 30 50 20 93953 Grinding & Polishing Workers (Hand) 40 50 10 93956 Assemblers (except machine/electronic/precision) 420 540 120 93999 All Other Hand Workers 650 850 200 95002 Water & Waste Treatment Plant Operators 80 100 20 95005 Gas Plant Operators 20 20 0 95008 Chemical Plant & System Operators 20 30 10 95011 Petroleum Pump System Operators 30 40 10 95014 Petroleum Refinery & Control Panel Operators 70 90 20 95017 Gaugers 230 290 60 95021 Power Plant Operators (except auxiliary equipment) 20 20 0 95023 Auxiliary Equipment Operators-Power 10 10 0 95026 Power Reactor Operators * * * 95028 Power Distributors & Dispatchers 10 10 0 95032 Stationary Engineers 20 10 -10 
A-64

Table A-5 

Regional Labor Market Area 3—Assumption, Lafourche, and Terrebonne Parishes 

Occupational Employment Statistics 

(Louisiana Department of Labor) 

Occupation 

Code

Occupational 

Title

1998 

Employment

Projected 

2008 

Employment 

Projected 

Total 

Growth 

95099 All Other Plant & System Operators 310 370 60 97102 Truck Drivers-Heavy or Tractor-Trailer 1,050 1,280 230 97105 Truck Drivers-Light (including delivery) 890 1,090 200 97108 Bus Drivers (except school) 60 80 20 97111 School Bus Drivers 380 440 60 97114 Taxi Drivers & Chauffeurs 60 80 20 97117 Driver/Sales Workers 140 150 10 97199 All Other Motor Vehicle Operators 30 30 0 97502 Captains-Water Vessel 1,060 1,160 100 97505 Mates-Ship, Boat & Barge 470 530 60 97508 Pilots-Ship 130 140 10 97511 Motorboat Operators 20 20 0 97514 Able Seamen 310 340 30 97517 Ordinary Seamen & Marine Oilers 730 810 80 97521 Ship Engineers 210 230 20 97702 Aircraft Pilots & Flight Engineers 30 30 0 97802 Bridge, Lock & Lighthouse Tenders 10 10 0 97805 Service Station Attendants 60 70 10 97808 Parking Lot Attendants 20 20 0 97899 All Other Transportation Workers 220 280 60 97902 Longshore Equipment Operators 140 160 20 97908 Oil Pumpers (except wellhead) 30 30 0 97911 Wellhead Pumpers 70 60 -10 97914 Main-Line Station Engineers-Oil & Gas 10 20 10 97917 Gas Pumping Station Operators * * * 97921 Gas Compressor Operators 10 10 0 97923 Excavating & Loading Machine Operators 30 50 20 
A-65

Table A-5 

Regional Labor Market Area 3—Assumption, Lafourche, and Terrebonne Parishes 

Occupational Employment Statistics 

(Louisiana Department of Labor) 

Occupation 

Code

Occupational 

Title

1998 

Employment

Projected 

2008 

Employment 

Projected 

Total 

Growth 

97926 Dragline Operators * * * 97928 Dredge Operators 10 10 0 97938 Grader, Bulldozer & Scraper Operators 90 130 40 97941 Hoist & Winch Operators 50 70 20 97944 Crane & Tower Operators 220 300 80 97947 Industrial Truck & Tractor Operators 230 270 40 97951 Conveyor Operators & Tenders 10 10 0 97953 Pump Operators 30 30 0 97956 Operating Engineers 50 70 20 97989 All Other Material Equipment Moving Operators 130 150 20 97999 All Other Material Moving Equipment Operators 60 80 20 98102 Mechanic & Repairer Helpers 340 450 110 98311 Brick & Stonemason & Hard Tile Setter Helpers 20 20 0 98312 Carpenter Helpers 100 130 30 98313 Electrician Helpers 100 120 20 98314 Painter, Paperhanger & Plasterer Helpers 40 50 10 98315 Plumber & Pipefitter Helpers 90 120 30 98316 Roofer Helpers 20 20 0 98319 Helpers, All Other Construction 220 370 150 98323 Extractive Worker Helpers 10 10 0 98502 Machine Feeders & Offbearers 50 40 -10 98702 Stevedores (except equipment operators) 370 350 -20 98705 Refuse & Recyclable Materials Collectors 40 40 0 98799 Freight, Stock & Material Handlers 310 340 30 98902 Hand Packers & Packagers 360 400 40 98905 Vehicle Washers & Equipment Cleaners 150 200 50 98999 All Other Helpers, Laborers, & Material Movers 1,920 2,480 560 
A-66

Table A-5 

Regional Labor Market Area 3—Assumption, Lafourche, and Terrebonne Parishes 

Occupational Employment Statistics 

(Louisiana Department of Labor) 

Occupation 

Code

Occupational 

Title

1998 

Employment

Projected 

2008 

Employment 

Projected 

Total 

Growth 

Annual Total Growth = demand in the occupation as a function of replacement demand (retirements + turnover) + net growth. N/A—Not Available. * 1998 employment under 10 suppressed. ** Hourly wages for occupations where workers typically work fewer than 2,080 hours per year not available. 
A-67 

Table A-6 

 

Louisiana Department of Labor Region 3—Lafourche, Terrebonne, and Assumption Parishes 

(Data are from the 1990 Census Special Tabulation of Occupation by Industry. 

These counts are for all industries.) 

Number in 

Experienced 

Labor Force 

Census 

Occupation Code Occupation Title 

36 3 Legislators 

11 4 Chief Executives and General Administrators, Public Administration 

183 5 Administrators and Officials, Public Administration 

67 6 Administrators, Protective Service 

393 7 Financial Managers 

165 8 Personnel and Labor Relations Managers 

36 9 Purchasing Managers 

217 13 Managers, Marketing, Advertising, and Public Relations 

498 14 Administrators, Education and Related Fields 

83 15 Managers, Medicine and Health 

32 16 Postmasters and Mail Superintendents 

805 17 Managers, Food Serving and Lodging Establishments 

200 18 Managers, Properties and Real Estate 

47 19 Funeral Directors 

239 21 Managers, Service Organizations, n.e.c. 

2,701 22 Managers and Administrators, n.e.c. 

553 23 Accountants and Auditors 

23 24 Underwriters 

268 25 Other Financial Officers 

63 26 Management Analysts 

223 27 Personnel, Training, and Labor Relations Specialists 

115 29 Buyers, Wholesale and Retail Trade (except farm products) 

203 33 Purchasing Agents and Buyers 

90 35 Construction Inspectors 

84 36 Inspectors and Compliance Officers (except construction) 

74 37 Management Related Occupations, n.e.c. 

16 43 Architects 

6 45 Metallurgical and Materials Engineers 

9 46 Mining Engineers 

209 47 Petroleum Engineers 

21 48 Chemical Engineers 

142 53 Civil Engineers 

12 54 Agricultural Engineers 

58 55 Electrical and Electronic Engineers 

45 56 Industrial Engineers 

40 57 Mechanical Engineers 

126 58 Marine and Naval Architects 

58 59 Engineers, n.e.c. 

17 63 Surveyors and Mapping Scientists 

38 64 Computer Systems Analysts and Scientists 
A-68 

Table A-6 

 

Louisiana Department of Labor Region 3—Lafourche, Terrebonne, and Assumption Parishes 

(Data are from the 1990 Census Special Tabulation of Occupation by Industry. 

These counts are for all industries.) 

Number in 

Experienced 

Labor Force 

Census 

Occupation Code Occupation Title 

20 65 Operations and Systems Researchers and Analysts 

12 67 Statisticians 

35 73 Chemists (except biochemists) 

15 75 Geologists and Geodesists 

28 77 Agricultural and Food Scientists 

33 78 Biological and Life Scientists 

204 84 Physicians 

121 85 Dentists 

13 86 Veterinarians 

18 87 Optometrists 

32 89 Health Diagnosing Practitioners, n.e.c. 

931 95 Registered Nurses 

92 96 Pharmacists 

72 97 Dietitians 

47 98 Respiratory Therapists 

31 103 Physical Therapists 

52 104 Speech Therapists 

51 105 Therapists, n.e.c. 

13 106 Physicians' Assistants 

10 118 Psychology Teachers 

7 127 Engineering Teachers 

7 134 Health Specialties Teachers 

15 135 Business, Commerce, and Marketing Teachers 

9 137 Art, Drama, and Music Teachers 

8 143 English Teachers 

296 154 Postsecondary Teachers, Subject Not Specified 

118 155 Teachers, Prekindergarten and Kindergarten 

3,649 156 Teachers, Elementary School 

454 157 Teachers, Secondary School 

27 158 Teachers, Special Education 

365 159 Teachers, n.e.c. 

120 163 Counselors, Educational and Vocational 

105 164 Librarians 

9 165 Archivists and Curators 

16 166 Economists 

21 167 Psychologists 

433 174 Social Workers 

50 175 Recreation Workers 

182 176 Clergy 

52 177 Religious Workers, n.e.c. 
A-69 

Table A-6 

 

Louisiana Department of Labor Region 3—Lafourche, Terrebonne, and Assumption Parishes 

(Data are from the 1990 Census Special Tabulation of Occupation by Industry. 

These counts are for all industries.) 

Number in 

Experienced 

Labor Force 

Census 

Occupation Code Occupation Title 

240 178 Lawyers 

9 179 Judges 

18 183 Authors 

216 185 Designers 

56 186 Musicians and Composers 

54 187 Actors and Directors 

25 188 Painters, Sculptors, Craft-Artists, and Artist Printmakers 

37 189 Photographers 

32 193 Dancers 

24 194 Artists, Performers, and Related Workers, n.e.c. 

71 195 Editors and Reporters 

73 197 Public Relations Specialists 

29 198 Announcers 

163 199 Athletes 

256 203 Clinical Laboratory Technologists and Technicians 

29 204 Dental Hygienists 

26 205 Health Record Technologists and Technicians 

134 206 Radiologic Technicians 

351 207 Licensed Practical Nurses 

244 208 Health Technologists and Technicians, n.e.c. 

194 213 Electrical and Electronic Technicians 

5 215 Mechanical Engineering Technicians 

170 216 Engineering Technicians, n.e.c. 

175 217 Drafting Occupations 

56 218 Surveying and Mapping Technicians 

71 223 Biological Technicians 

144 224 Chemical Technicians 

115 225 Science Technicians, n.e.c. 

100 226 Airplane Pilots and Navigators 

19 227 Air Traffic Controllers 

53 228 Broadcast Equipment Operators 

107 229 Computer Programmers 

131 234 Legal Assistants 

288 235 Technicians, n.e.c. 

2,854 243 Supervisors and Proprietors, Sales Occupations 

551 253 Insurance Sales Occupations 

217 254 Real Estate Sales Occupations 

73 255 Securities and Financial Services Sales Occupations 

70 256 Advertising and Related Sales Occupations 

191 257 Sales Occupations, Other Business Services 
A-70 

Table A-6 

 

Louisiana Department of Labor Region 3—Lafourche, Terrebonne, and Assumption Parishes 

(Data are from the 1990 Census Special Tabulation of Occupation by Industry. 

These counts are for all industries.) 

Number in 

Experienced 

Labor Force 

Census 

Occupation Code Occupation Title 

13 258 Sales Engineers 

1,029 259 Sales Representatives, Mining, Manufacturing, and Wholesale 

214 263 Sales Workers, Motor Vehicles and Boats 

279 264 Sales Workers, Apparel 

107 265 Sales Workers, Shoes 

124 266 Sales Workers, Furniture and Home Furnishings 

113 267 Sales Workers, Radio, TV, Hi-Fi, and Appliances 

130 268 Sales Workers, Hardware, and Building Supplies 

89 269 Sales Workers, Parts 

1,669 274 Sales Workers, Other Commodities 

147 275 Sales Counter Clerks 

4,538 276 Cashiers 

207 277 Street and Door-To-Door Sales Workers 

118 278 News Vendors 

15 283 Demonstrators, Promoters and Models, Sales 

12 285 Sales Support Occupations, n.e.c. 

252 303 Supervisors, General Office 

5 304 Supervisors, Computer Equipment Operators 

24 305 Supervisors, Financial Records Processing 

59 307 Supervisors, Distribution, Scheduling, and Adjusting Clerks 

313 308 Computer Operators 

3,365 313 Secretaries 

65 314 Stenographers 

410 315 Typists 

155 316 Interviewers 

50 317 Hotel Clerks 

33 318 Transportation Ticket and Reservation Agents 

640 319 Receptionists 

119 323 Information Clerks, n.e.c. 

8 325 Classified-Ad Clerks 

99 327 Order Clerks 

45 328 Personnel Clerks (except payroll and timekeeping) 

79 329 Library Clerks 

170 335 File Clerks 

53 336 Records Clerks 

1,553 337 Bookkeepers, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks 

79 338 Payroll and Timekeeping Clerks 

66 339 Billing Clerks 

52 343 Cost and Rate Clerks 

18 344 Billing, Posting, and Calculating Machine Operators 
A-71 

Table A-6 

 

Louisiana Department of Labor Region 3—Lafourche, Terrebonne, and Assumption Parishes 

(Data are from the 1990 Census Special Tabulation of Occupation by Industry. 

These counts are for all industries.) 

Number in 

Experienced 

Labor Force 

Census 

Occupation Code Occupation Title 

163 348 Telephone Operators 

12 353 Communications Equipment Operators, n.e.c. 

144 354 Postal Clerks (excluding mail carriers) 

169 355 Mail Carriers, Postal Service 

65 356 Mail Clerks (excluding postal service) 

124 357 Messengers 

235 359 Dispatchers 

127 363 Production Coordinators 

200 364 Traffic, Shipping and Receiving Clerks 

587 365 Stock and Inventory Clerks 

75 366 Meter Readers 

77 368 Weighers, Measurers, and Checkers -- Samplers 

105 373 Expediters 

13 374 Material Recording, Scheduling and Distributing Clerks, n.e.c. 

87 375 Insurance Adjusters, Examiners, and Investigators 

212 376 Investigators and Adjusters (except insurance) 

55 377 Eligibility Clerks, Social Welfare 

151 378 Bill and Account Collectors 

957 379 General Office Clerks 

665 383 Bank Tellers 

172 385 Data-Entry Keyers 

33 386 Statistical Clerks 

232 387 Teachers' Aides 

367 389 Administrative Support Occupations, n.e.c. 

11 403 Launderers and Ironers 

7 404 Cooks, Private Household 

34 405 Housekeepers and Butlers 

185 406 Child Care Workers, Private Household 

397 407 Private Household Cleaners and Servants 

35 414 Supervisors, Police and Detectives 

22 415 Supervisors, Guards 

5 416 Fire Inspection and Fire Prevention Occupations 

81 417 Firefighting Occupations 

309 418 Police and Detectives, Public Service 

196 423 Sheriffs, Bailiffs, and Other Law Enforcement Officers 

69 424 Correctional Institution Officers 

7 425 Crossing Guards 

424 426 Guards and Police (excluding public service) 

74 427 Protective Service Occupations 

192 433 Supervisors, Food Preparation and Service Occupations 
A-72 

Table A-6 

 

Louisiana Department of Labor Region 3—Lafourche, Terrebonne, and Assumption Parishes 

(Data are from the 1990 Census Special Tabulation of Occupation by Industry. 

These counts are for all industries.) 

Number in 

Experienced 

Labor Force 

Census 

Occupation Code Occupation Title 

424 434 Bartenders 

1,190 435 Waiters and Waitresses 

2,497 436 Cooks 

136 438 Food Counter, Fountain, and Related Occupations 

329 439 Kitchen Workers, Food Preparation 

221 443 Waiters'/Waitresses' Assistants 

804 444 Miscellaneous Food Preparation Occupations 

138 445 Dental Assistants 

211 446 Health Aids (except nursing) 

1,889 447 Nursing Aides, Orderlies, and Attendants 

86 448 Supervisors, Cleaning and Building Service Workers 

628 449 Maids and Housemen 

2,141 453 Janitors and Cleaners 

70 455 Pest Control Occupations 

64 456 Supervisors, Personal Service Occupations 

106 457 Barbers 

863 458 Hairdressers and Cosmetologists 

89 459 Attendants, Amusement and Recreation Facilities 

20 461 Guides 

6 463 Public Transportation Attendants 

45 465 Welfare Service Aides 

231 466 Family Child Care Providers 

322 467 Early Childhood Teacher's Assistants 

269 468 Child Care Workers, n.e.c. 

165 469 Personal Service Occupations, n.e.c. 

220 473 Farmers (except horticultural) 

9 474 Horticultural Specialty Farmers 

265 475 Managers, Farms (except horticultural) 

13 476 Managers, Horticultural Specialty Farms 

20 477 Supervisors, Farm Workers 

631 479 Farm Workers 

31 485 Supervisors, Related Agricultural Occupations 

609 486 Groundskeepers and Gardeners (except farm) 

25 487 Animal Caretakers (except farm) 

85 488 Graders and Sorters, Agricultural Products 

10 494 Supervisors, Forestry and Logging Workers 

37 496 Timber Cutting and Logging Occupations 

238 497 Captains and Other Officers, Fishing Vessels 

1,996 498 Fishers 

32 499 Hunters and Trappers 
A-73 

Table A-6 

 

Louisiana Department of Labor Region 3—Lafourche, Terrebonne, and Assumption Parishes 

(Data are from the 1990 Census Special Tabulation of Occupation by Industry. 

These counts are for all industries.) 

Number in 

Experienced 

Labor Force 

Census 

Occupation Code Occupation Title 

330 503 Supervisors, Mechanics and Repairers 

749 505 Automobile Mechanics (except apprentices) 

441 507 Bus, Truck, and Stationary Engine Mechanics 

34 508 Aircraft Engine Mechanics 

261 509 Small Engine Repairers 

154 514 Automobile Body and Related Repairers 

18 515 Aircraft Mechanics (excluding engine) 

263 516 Heavy Equipment Mechanics 

55 517 Farm Equipment Mechanics 

352 518 Industrial Machinery Repairers 

42 519 Machinery Maintenance Occupations 

217 523 Electronic Repairers, Communications and Industrial Equipment 

44 525 Data Processing Equipment Repairers 

68 526 Household Appliance and Power Tool Repairers 

55 527 Telephone Line Installers and Repairers 

158 529 Telephone Installers and Repairers 

59 533 Miscellaneous Electrical and Electronic Equipment Repairers 

92 534 Heating, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration Mechanics 

18 535 Camera, Watch, and Musical Instrument Repairers 

12 536 Locksmiths and Safe Repairers 

14 538 Office Machine Repairers 

88 539 Mechanical Controls and Valve Repairers 

7 543 Elevator Installers and Repairers 

42 544 Millwrights 

371 547 Specified Mechanics and Repairers, n.e.c. 

429 549 Not Specified Mechanics and Repairers 

29 554 Supervisors, Carpenters and Related Work 

22 555 Supervisors, Electricians and Power Transmission Installers 

61 556 Supervisors, Painters, Paperhangers, and Plasterers 

6 557 Supervisors, Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters 

499 558 Supervisors, Construction, n.e.c. 

92 563 Brickmasons and Stonemasons (except apprentices) 

15 565 Tile Setters, Hard and Soft 

70 566 Carpet Installers 

1,113 567 Carpenters (except apprentices) 

25 569 Carpenter Apprentices 

55 573 Drywall Installers 

773 575 Electricians (except apprentices) 

7 576 Electrician Apprentices 

79 577 Electrical Power Installers and Repairers 
A-74 

Table A-6 

 

Louisiana Department of Labor Region 3—Lafourche, Terrebonne, and Assumption Parishes 

(Data are from the 1990 Census Special Tabulation of Occupation by Industry. 

These counts are for all industries.) 

Number in 

Experienced 

Labor Force 

Census 

Occupation Code Occupation Title 

654 579 Painters, Construction and Maintenance 

8 583 Paperhangers 

850 585 Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters (except apprentices) 

15 587 Plumber, Pipefitter, and Steamfitter Apprentices 

129 588 Concrete and Terrazzo Finishers 

26 589 Glaziers 

375 593 Insulation Workers 

12 594 Paving, Surfacing, and Tamping Equipment Operators 

94 595 Roofers 

18 596 Sheetmetal Duct Installers 

53 597 Structural Metal Workers 

20 598 Drillers, Earth 

501 599 Construction Trades, n.e.c. 

938 613 Supervisors, Extractive Occupations 

1,184 614 Drillers, Oil Well 

115 615 Explosives Workers 

199 616 Mining Machine Operators 

455 617 Mining Occupations, n.e.c. 

883 628 Supervisors, Production Occupations 

30 634 Tool and Die Makers (except apprentices) 

18 636 Precision Assemblers, Metal 

533 637 Machinists (except apprentices) 

8 639 Machinist Apprentices 

93 643 Boilermakers 

27 645 Patternmakers and Model Makers, Metal 

411 646 Lay-Out Workers 

15 647 Precious Stones and Metals Workers 

8 649 Engravers, Metal 

102 653 Sheet Metal Workers (except apprentices) 

5 659 Miscellaneous Precision Woodworkers 

82 666 Dressmakers 

10 667 Tailors 

34 668 Upholsterers 

6 669 Shoe Repairers 

21 674 Miscellaneous Precision Apparel and Fabric Workers 

35 677 Optical Goods Workers 

38 678 Dental Laboratory and Medical Appliance Technicians 

17 679 Bookbinders 

38 684 Miscellaneous Precision Workers, n.e.c. 

366 686 Butchers and Meat Cutters 
A-75 

Table A-6 

 

Louisiana Department of Labor Region 3—Lafourche, Terrebonne, and Assumption Parishes 

(Data are from the 1990 Census Special Tabulation of Occupation by Industry. 

These counts are for all industries.) 

Number in 

Experienced 

Labor Force 

Census 

Occupation Code Occupation Title 

119 687 Bakers 

60 688 Food Batchmakers 

22 689 Inspectors, Testers, and Graders 

6 693 Adjusters and Calibrators 

56 694 Water and Sewage Treatment Plant Operators 

46 695 Power Plant Operators 

214 696 Stationary Engineers 

310 699 Miscellaneous Plant and System Operators 

17 704 Lathe and Turning Machine Operators 

22 706 Punching and Stamping Press Machine Operators 

36 707 Rolling Machine Operators 

19 708 Drilling and Boring Machine Operators 

3 709 Grinding, Abrading, Buffing, and Polishing Machine Operators 

15 717 Fabricating Machine Operators, n.e.c. 

9 719 Molding and Casting Machine Operators 

15 723 Metal Plating Machine Operators 

137 725 Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Processing Machine Operators 

8 727 Sawing Machine Operators 

4 728 Shaping and Joining Machine Operators 

17 733 Miscellaneous Woodworking Machine Operators 

49 734 Printing Press Operators 

15 736 Typesetters and Compositors 

86 744 Textile Sewing Machine Operators 

145 747 Pressing Machine Operators 

154 748 Laundering and Dry Cleaning Machine Operators 

2 753 Cementing and Gluing Machine Operators 

168 754 Packaging and Filling Machine Operators 

14 755 Extruding and Forming Machine Operators 

67 756 Mixing and Blending Machine Operators 

78 757 Separating, Filtering, and Clarifying Machine Operators 

72 759 Painting and Paint Spraying Machine Operators 

6 763 Roasting and Baking Machine Operators, Food 

8 764 Washing, Cleaning, and Pickling Machine Operators 

48 766 Furnace, Kiln, and Oven Operators (except food) 

6 768 Crushing and Grinding Machine Operators 

163 769 Slicing and Cutting Machine Operators 

1 773 Motion Picture Projectionists 

70 774 Photographic Process Machine Operators 

478 777 Miscellaneous and Not Specified Machine Operators, n.e.c. 

400 779 Machine Operators, Not Specified 
A-76 

Table A-6 

 

Louisiana Department of Labor Region 3—Lafourche, Terrebonne, and Assumption Parishes 

(Data are from the 1990 Census Special Tabulation of Occupation by Industry. 

These counts are for all industries.) 

Number in 

Experienced 

Labor Force 

Census 

Occupation Code Occupation Title 

3,489 783 Welders and Cutters 

233 785 Assemblers 

317 786 Hand Cutting and Trimming Occupations 

8 787 Hand Molding, Casting, and Forming Occupations 

38 789 Hand Painting, Coating, and Decorating Occupations 

6 793 Hand Engraving and Printing Occupations 

276 796 Production Inspectors, Checkers, and Examiners 

76 797 Production Testers 

11 798 Production Samplers and Weighers 

81 799 Graders and Sorters (except agricultural) 

57 803 Supervisors, Motor Vehicle Operators 

2,716 804 Truck Drivers 

163 806 Driver-Sales Workers 

474 808 Bus Drivers 

58 809 Taxicab Drivers and Chauffeurs 

6 814 Motor Transportation Occupations, n.e.c. 

87 824 Locomotive Operating Occupations 

9 825 Railroad Brake, Signal, and Switch Operators 

2,156 828 Ship Captains and Mates (except fishing boats) 

1,317 829 Sailors and Deckhands 

37 833 Marine Engineers 

166 834 Bridge, Lock and Lighthouse Tenders 

24 843 Supervisors, Material Moving Equipment Operators 

173 844 Operating Engineers 

29 845 Longshore Equipment Operators 

189 848 Hoist and Winch Operators 

439 849 Crane and Tower Operators 

143 853 Excavating and Loading Machine Operators 

54 855 Grader, Dozer, and Scraper Operators 

220 856 Industrial Truck and Tractor Equipment Operators 

354 859 Miscellaneous Material Moving Equipment Operators 

5 864 Supervisors, Handlers, Equipment Cleaners, and Laborers, n.e.c. 

22 865 Helpers, Mechanics and Repairers 

239 866 Helpers, Construction Trades 

16 867 Helpers, Surveyor 

37 868 Helpers, Extractive Occupations 

1,043 869 Construction Laborers 

185 874 Production Helpers 

86 875 Garbage Collectors 

15 876 Stevedores 
A-77 

Table A-6 

 

Louisiana Department of Labor Region 3—Lafourche, Terrebonne, and Assumption Parishes 

(Data are from the 1990 Census Special Tabulation of Occupation by Industry. 

These counts are for all industries.) 

Number in 

Experienced 

Labor Force 

Census 

Occupation Code Occupation Title 

1,232 877 Stock Handlers and Baggers 

15 878 Machine Feeders and Offbearers 

344 883 Freight, Stock, and Material Handlers, n.e.c. 

316 885 Garage and Service Station Related Occupations 

184 887 Vehicle Washers and Equipment Cleaners 

552 888 Hand Packers and Packagers 

1798 889 Laborers (except construction) 

n.e.c.—not else classified. 
A-78 

Table A-7 

 

Louisiana Department of Labor Region 3—Lafourche, Terrebonne and Assumption Parishes 

(Data are from the 1990 Census Special Tabulation of Occupation by Industry. 

These counts are for SIC=353, Construction and Related Machinery, and 

SIC=373, Ship and Boat Building and Repairing.) 

Number in 

Experienced 

Labor Force 

Census Occupation 

Code Occupation Title 

10 7 Financial Managers 

11 13 Managers, Marketing, Advertising, and Public Relations 

152 22 Managers and Administrators, n.e.c. 

9 25 Other Financial Officers 

4 27 Personnel, Training, and Labor Relations Specialists 

38 33 Purchasing Agents and Buyers 

8 36 Inspectors and Compliance Officers (except construction) 

8 55 Electrical and Electronic Engineers 

7 56 Industrial Engineers 

5 57 Mechanical Engineers 

54 58 Marine and Naval Architects 

16 59 Engineers, n.e.c. 

7 64 Computer Systems Analysts and Scientists 

24 213 Electrical and Electronic Technicians 

15 217 Drafting Occupations 

8 226 Airplane Pilots and Navigators 

6 229 Computer Programmers 

8 235 Technicians, n.e.c. 

6 243 Supervisors and Proprietors, Sales Occupations 

20 259 Sales Representatives, Mining, Manufacturing, and Wholesale 

31 308 Computer Operators 

19 313 Secretaries 

8 319 Receptionists 

56 337 Bookkeepers, Accounting and Auditing Clerks 

8 338 Payroll and Timekeeping Clerks 

11 363 Production Coordinators 

6 364 Traffic, Shipping and Receiving Clerks 

74 365 Stock and Inventory Clerks 

6 376 Investigators and Adjusters (except insurance) 

23 379 General Office Clerks 

18 389 Administrative Support Occupations, n.e.c. 

7 417 Firefighting Occupations 

10 426 Guards and Police (excluding public service) 

4 436 Cooks 

44 453 Janitors and Cleaners 

7 469 Personal Service Occupations, n.e.c. 

5 505 Automobile Mechanics (except apprentices) 

16 507 Bus, Truck, and Stationary Engine Mechanics 

32 509 Small Engine Repairers 
A-79 

Table A-7 

 

Louisiana Department of Labor Region 3—Lafourche, Terrebonne and Assumption Parishes 

(Data are from the 1990 Census Special Tabulation of Occupation by Industry. 

These counts are for SIC=353, Construction and Related Machinery, and 

SIC=373, Ship and Boat Building and Repairing.) 

Number in 

Experienced 

Labor Force 

Census Occupation 

Code Occupation Title 

15 516 Heavy Equipment Mechanics 

10 517 Farm Equipment Mechanics 

64 518 Industrial Machinery Repairers 

8 519 Machinery Maintenance Occupations 

8 534 Heating, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration Mechanics 

6 539 Mechanical Controls and Valve Repairers 

40 547 Specified Mechanics and Repairers, n.e.c. 

17 549 Not Specified Mechanics and Repairers 

8 554 Supervisors, Carpenters and Related Work 

5 555 Supervisors, Electricians and Power Transmission Installers 

29 556 Supervisors, Painters, Paperhangers, and Plasterers 

6 557 Supervisors, Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters 

158 567 Carpenters (except apprentices) 

116 575 Electricians (except apprentices) 

80 579 Painters, Construction and Maintenance 

118 585 Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters (except apprentices) 

14 593 Insulation Workers 

7 599 Construction Trades, n.e.c. 

8 613 Supervisors, Extractive Occupations 

8 615 Explosives Workers 

7 617 Mining Occupations, n.e.c. 

324 628 Supervisors, Production Occupations 

7 634 Tool and Die Makers (except apprentices) 

114 637 Machinists (except apprentices) 

8 639 Machinist Apprentices 

9 645 Patternmakers and Model Makers, Metal 

390 646 Lay-Out Workers 

29 653 Sheet Metal Workers (except apprentices) 

5 696 Stationary Engineers 

7 706 Punching and Stamping Press Machine Operators 

5 707 Rolling Machine Operators 

9 719 Molding and Casting Machine Operators 

110 725 Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Processing Machine Operators 

14 744 Textile Sewing Machine Operators 

7 747 Pressing Machine Operators 

26 759 Painting and Paint Spraying Machine Operators 

8 774 Photographic Process Machine Operators 

119 777 Miscellaneous and Not Specified Machine Operators, n.e.c. 

53 779 Machine Operators, Not Specified 
A-80 

Table A-7 

 

Louisiana Department of Labor Region 3—Lafourche, Terrebonne and Assumption Parishes 

(Data are from the 1990 Census Special Tabulation of Occupation by Industry. 

These counts are for SIC=353, Construction and Related Machinery, and 

SIC=373, Ship and Boat Building and Repairing.) 

Number in 

Experienced 

Labor Force 

Census Occupation 

Code Occupation Title 

1,013 783 Welders and Cutters 

17 785 Assemblers 

14 789 Hand Painting, Coating, and Decorating Occupations 

21 796 Production Inspectors, Checkers, and Examiners 

8 797 Production Testers 

69 804 Truck Drivers 

51 828 Ship Captains and Mates, Except Fishing Boats 

16 829 Sailors and Deckhands 

6 848 Hoist and Winch Operators 

1 849 Crane and Tower Operators 

24 856 Industrial Truck and Tractor Equipment Operators 

20 859 Miscellaneous Material Moving Equipment Operators 

5 865 Helpers, Mechanics and Repairers 

42 866 Helpers, Construction Trades 

18 869 Construction Laborers 

73 874 Production Helpers 

7 876 Stevedores 

8 883 Freight, Stock, and Material Handlers, n.e.c. 

11 887 Vehicle Washers and Equipment Cleaners 

153 889 Laborers (except construction) 

n.e.c.—not else classified. 
The Department of the Interior Mission

As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility 

for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering 

sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; 

preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; 

and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses 

our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best 

interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. 

The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities 

and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration. 

The Minerals Management Service Mission 

As a bureau of the Department of the Interior, the Minerals Management Service's (MMS) 

primary responsibilities are to manage the mineral resources located on the Nation's Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS), collect revenue from the Federal OCS and onshore Federal and Indian 

lands, and distribute those revenues. 

Moreover, in working to meet its responsibilities, the Offshore Minerals Management Program 

administers the OCS competitive leasing program and oversees the safe and environmentally 

sound exploration and production of our Nation's offshore natural gas, oil and other mineral 

resources. The MMS Minerals Revenue Management meets its responsibilities by ensuring the 

efficient, timely and accurate collection and disbursement of revenue from mineral leasing and 

production due to Indian tribes and allottees, States and the U.S. Treasury. 

The MMS strives to fulfill its responsibilities through the general guiding principles of: (1) being 

responsive to the public's concerns and interests by maintaining a dialogue with all potentially 

affected parties and (2) carrying out its programs with an emphasis on working to enhance the 

quality of life for all Americans by lending MMS assistance and expertise to economic 

development and environmental protection.