OCS Study

BOEMRE 2011-001 

Analysis of the Oil Services Contract 

Industry in the Gulf of Mexico Region

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,

 Regulation and Enforcement

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

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,

 Regulation and Enforcement

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region

OCS Study

BOEMRE 2011-001 

Analysis of the Oil Services Contract Industry 

in the Gulf of Mexico Region

Authors

Maureen F. Kaplan

Sara Giberson

Stacey Ferranti

Dina Metivier

Prepared under BOEMRE Contract

M08PC20031

by

Eastern Research Group, Inc.

110 Hartwell Avenue

Lexington, MA 02421

Published by

New Orleans

June 2011 
iii

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared under contract between the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) and Eastern Research Group, Inc. This report has been 

technically reviewed by the BOEMRE and has been approved for publication. Approval does not 

signify that the contents necessarily reflect the view and policies of the BOEMRE, nor does 

mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for 

use. It is, however, exempt from review and in compliance with BOEMRE editorial standards.

R E P OR T AVAIL AB IL IT Y

This report is available only in compact disc format from the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulations and Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, at a charge of $15.00, 

by referencing OCS Study BOEMRE 2011-001. The report may be downloaded from the 

BOEMRE website through the Environmental Studies Program Information System (EPSIS

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

). 

You will be able to obtain this report also from the National Technical Information Service in the 

near future. Here are the addresses. You may also inspect copies at selected Federal Depository 

Libraries.

 Regulation and Enforcement

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region

Public Information Office (MS 5034)

1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard

New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394 

Telephone requests may be placed at

(504) 736-2519, 1-800-200-GULF, or

Rush Orders: 1-800-200-GULF

Fax: (504) 736-2620

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, Virginia 22161

Phone: (701) 605-6040 

Fax: (703) 605-6900 

Email: bookstore@ntis.gov

C IT AT ION

Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2011. Analysis of the oil services contract industry in the Gulf of 

Mexico region. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation

and Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study BOEMRE 

2011-001. 216 pp. 

AC K NOWL E DG ME NT S

The Eastern Research Group, Inc. team included COMM Engineering. Earl Thibodeaux, in 

particular, provided field experience perspective and knowledge to this project. The authors 

would like to thank Sindey Chaky, Harry Luton, Kristen Strellec, Kim Coffman, and Thierry 

DeCort, all of BOEMRE, for their helpful comments and assistance with preparing the report.
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF FIGURES..............................................................................................................ix

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................... xi

1 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Purpose...................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Methodology and Data Sources.................................................................................. 1

1.3 Summary of Findings................................................................................................. 3

2 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 9

2.1 Background ............................................................................................................... 9

2.2 Socioeconomic Analyses and MAG-PLAN................................................................ 9

2.3 Overview of Selected MAG-PLAN Activity Functions............................................ 11

2.3.1 Geological and Geophysical Prospecting...................................................... 11

2.3.2 Exploratory Well Drilling............................................................................. 13

2.3.3 Development Well Drilling .......................................................................... 21

2.3.4 Production and Operations ........................................................................... 28

3 Contract Services Industries ................................................................................................ 33

3.1 Geophysical and Geological Prospecting ................................................................. 33

3.1.1 Ownership Patterns and Company Size ........................................................ 33

3.2 Drilling Contractors................................................................................................. 38

3.2.1 Ownership Patterns and Company Size ........................................................ 38

3.2.2 Rig Counts................................................................................................... 40

3.2.3 Percentage of Work Performed Offshore and Percent of Offshore Work 

Performed in the Gulf of Mexico.................................................................. 41

3.2.4 Locations ..................................................................................................... 43

3.2.5 Companies That Would Like to Be Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico ............... 45

3.3 Drilling Fluid and Specialty Chemical Suppliers...................................................... 46

3.3.1 Ownership Patterns and Company Size ........................................................ 46

3.3.2 Locations ..................................................................................................... 47

3.4 Drilling Supplies and Equipment ............................................................................. 50

3.4.1 Ownership Patterns and Company Size ........................................................ 50

3.4.2 Locations ..................................................................................................... 53

3.5 Mud Logging........................................................................................................... 56

3.5.1 Ownership Patterns and Company Size ........................................................ 56

3.5.2 Locations ..................................................................................................... 57

3.6 Measurement While Drilling Services...................................................................... 58

3.6.1 Ownership Patterns and Company Size ........................................................ 58

3.6.2 Locations ..................................................................................................... 60

3.7 Cementing Services ................................................................................................. 62

3.7.1 Ownership Patterns and Company Size ........................................................ 62

3.7.2 Locations ..................................................................................................... 62
vi

3.8 Formation Evaluation............................................................................................... 63

3.8.1 Ownership Patterns and Company Size ........................................................ 63

3.8.2 Locations ..................................................................................................... 65

3.9 Well Completion...................................................................................................... 67

3.9.1 Ownership Patterns and Company Size ........................................................ 67

3.9.2 Locations ..................................................................................................... 69

3.10 Fishing..................................................................................................................... 70

3.10.1 Ownership Patterns and Company Size ........................................................ 70

3.10.2 Locations ..................................................................................................... 71

3.11 Wellhead Equipment................................................................................................ 72

3.11.1 Ownership Patterns and Company Size ........................................................ 72

3.11.2 Locations ..................................................................................................... 73

3.12 Accommodations..................................................................................................... 75

3.12.1 Ownership Patterns and Company Size ........................................................ 75

3.12.2 Locations ..................................................................................................... 77

3.13 Air Transport ........................................................................................................... 79

3.13.1 Ownership Patterns and Company Size ........................................................ 79

3.13.2 Locations ..................................................................................................... 80

3.14 Water Transport....................................................................................................... 82

3.14.1 Ownership Patterns and Company Size ........................................................ 82

3.14.2 Locations ..................................................................................................... 85

3.15 Catering................................................................................................................... 89

3.15.1 Ownership Patterns and Company Size ........................................................ 89

3.15.2 Locations ..................................................................................................... 91

3.16 Workovers............................................................................................................... 93

3.16.1 Ownership Patterns and Company Size ........................................................ 93

3.16.2 Locations ..................................................................................................... 93

3.17 Diving ..................................................................................................................... 96

3.17.1 Companies ................................................................................................... 96

3.17.2 Locations ..................................................................................................... 96

4 Integrating Contract Services into MAG-PLAN ................................................................ 101

4.1 Methodological Approach...................................................................................... 101

4.1.1 Cost Types................................................................................................. 101

4.1.2 Disaggregating Activity Functions Into Economic Sectors ......................... 103

4.2 Geophysical and Geological Prospecting ............................................................... 106

4.2.1 Estimating the Cost Function...................................................................... 106

4.2.2 Timing and Frequency................................................................................ 108

4.2.3 Magnitude of the Shock.............................................................................. 108

4.2.4 Supply and Demand for Geological and Geophysical Prospecting Services 

in the Offshore Gulf of Mexico .................................................................. 109

4.3 Exploratory Well Drilling ...................................................................................... 111

4.3.1 Cost Function Description.......................................................................... 111

4.3.2 Cost Function Estimation ........................................................................... 114

4.3.3 Cost Function Components......................................................................... 116
vii

4.4 Development Well Drilling .............................................................................. 118

4.4.1 Cost Function Description.......................................................................... 118

4.4.2 Cost Function Estimation ........................................................................... 121

4.4.3 Cost Function Components......................................................................... 123

4.5 Production and Operations..................................................................................... 125

4.5.1 Cost Function Description.......................................................................... 125

4.5.2 Cost Function Estimation ........................................................................... 127

4.5.3 Cost Function Components......................................................................... 128

5 Summary And Observations.............................................................................................. 131

6 Literature Cited ................................................................................................................. 137

Appendix A: Location Tables.................................................................................................. A-1 
ix

LIST OF FIGURES 

Page

Figure 1. Marine seismic vessel towing multiple hydrophone streamers. ................................... 12

Figure 2. Offshore development systems. .................................................................................. 22

Figure 3. Wellslots on Platform Grace....................................................................................... 23

Figure 4. Locations of major helicopter service providers.......................................................... 25

Figure 5. Activity functions and cost types for an offshore oil and gas project......................... 102

Figure 6. Disaggregation of activity function shock into labor and non-labor components. ...... 104

Figure 7. Monthly peak number of active seismic crews in the offshore United States, 

January 2000–August 2008. ..................................................................................... 110

Figure 8. Location of deep wells, 1997–2001. ......................................................................... 111
xi

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. 2007 Locations, Revenues, and Employees in Oil Services Industries in the Gulf 

of Mexico Region ......................................................................................................4

Table 2. Activity Function Codes and E&D Scenario Mapping ............................................. 10

Table 3. Deep-Water Drilling Vessels in the Gulf of Mexico as of July 2008......................... 16

Table 4. Companies Offering Geological and Geophysical Surveying in the Gulf of 

Mexico .................................................................................................................... 34

Table 5. Regional Distribution of Employees and Revenue.................................................... 38

Table 6. Drilling Companies in the Gulf of Mexico ............................................................... 39

Table 7. Rig Counts............................................................................................................... 41

Table 8. Percentage of Work Performed Offshore and Percent of Offshore Work 

Performed in the Gulf of Mexico ............................................................................. 42

Table 9. Regional Distribution of Employees and Revenue—Drilling Services ..................... 44

Table 10. Location Totals—Drilling Services.......................................................................... 45

Table 11. Drilling Fluid Companies in the Gulf of Mexico ...................................................... 47

Table 12. Regional Distribution of Employees and Revenue—Drilling Fluids......................... 49

Table 13. Location Totals—Drilling Fluids............................................................................. 50

Table 14. Drilling Supplies and Equipment Companies in the Gulf of Mexico......................... 51

Table 15. Regional Distribution of Employees and Revenue—Drilling Tools and Supplies..... 54

Table 16. Location Totals—Drilling Tools and Supplies ......................................................... 55

Table 17. Mud Logging Companies in the Gulf of Mexico ...................................................... 56

Table 18. Regional Distribution of Employees and Revenue—Mud Logging Services ............ 58

Table 19. Location Totals—Mud Logging Services................................................................. 58

Table 20. MWD Companies in the Gulf of Mexico ................................................................. 59

Table 21. Regional Distribution of Employees and Revenue—MWD Services........................ 61

Table 22. Location Totals—MWD Services............................................................................ 61
xii

Table 23. Cementing Companies in the Gulf of Mexico .......................................................... 62

Table 24. Regional Distribution of Employees and Revenue—Cementing Services................. 63

Table 25. Formation Evaluation Companies in the Gulf of Mexico.......................................... 64

Table 26. Regional Distribution of Employees and Revenue—Formation Evaluation.............. 66

Table 27. Location Totals—Formation Evaluation .................................................................. 67

Table 28. Completion Companies in the Gulf of Mexico ......................................................... 68

Table 29. Regional Distribution of Employees and Revenue—Well Completion Services....... 69

Table 30. Location Totals—Well Completion Services ........................................................... 70

Table 31. Companies in the GOM That Offer Fishing Services ............................................... 71

Table 32. Regional Distribution of Employees and Revenue—Fishing Services...................... 72

Table 33. Location Totals—Fishing Services .......................................................................... 72

Table 34. Wellhead Equipment Companies in the Gulf of Mexico........................................... 73

Table 35. Regional Distribution of Employees and Revenue—Wellhead Services................... 74

Table 36. Location Totals by Company—Wellhead Services................................................... 75

Table 37. Accommodation Companies in the Gulf of Mexico.................................................. 76

Table 38. Regional Distribution of Employees and Revenue—Accommodations..................... 78

Table 39. Location Totals by Company—Accommodations.................................................... 79

Table 40. Air Transportation Contractors in the Gulf of Mexico.............................................. 80

Table 41. Regional Distribution of Employees and Revenue—Air Transport........................... 81

Table 42. Location Totals by Company—Air Transport .......................................................... 82

Table 43. Water Transportation Contractors in the Gulf of Mexico.......................................... 82

Table 44. Regional Distribution of Employees and Revenue—Water Transport ...................... 86

Table 45. Location Totals by Company—Water Transport...................................................... 87

Table 46. Catering Companies in the Gulf of Mexico .............................................................. 90

Table 47. Regional Distribution of Employees and Revenue.................................................... 92
xiii

Table 48. Summary of GOM Employment in Catering by Company ....................................... 93

Table 49. Companies Offering Workover Services in the Gulf of Mexico................................ 94

Table 50. Regional Distribution of Employees and Revenue.................................................... 95

Table 51. Summary of GOM Employment in Workover Services by Company....................... 96

Table 52. Companies Offering Diving Services in the Gulf of Mexico .................................... 97

Table 53. Regional Distribution of Employees and Revenue.................................................... 98

Table 54. Summary of GOM Employment in Diving Services by Company............................ 99

Table 55. Geological and Geophysical Costs as a Percentage of Exploratory Drilling Costs.. 109

Table 56. Expenditures for Offshore GOM Exploratory Well, 19,000 Feet Depth.................. 112

Table 57. Cost Summary by Sector ....................................................................................... 114

Table 58. Grouping Well Costs Into Services and Commodities............................................ 115

Table 59. Derivation of Labor Share for Exploratory Drilling................................................ 117

Table 60. Expenditures for Offshore GOM Development Well, 15,000 Feet Depth ............... 119

Table 61. Cost Summary by Sector ....................................................................................... 120

Table 62. Grouping Well Costs Into Services and Commodities............................................ 122

Table 63. Comparison of Cost Functions for Exploratory and Development Wells................ 123

Table 64. Derivation of Labor Share for Development Drilling ............................................. 124

Table 65. Items Tracked for Oil, Gas, or Coal Bed Natural Gas Lease Equipment and 

Operating Costs..................................................................................................... 125

Table 66. 2006 Annual Operating Costs for Gulf of Mexico Offshore Platforms ................... 126

Table 67. Grouping Operating Costs Into IMPLAN Sectors.................................................. 127

Table 68. Derivation of Labor Share for O&M Activity Function.......................................... 129

Table 69. Number of Locations by Sector and State .............................................................. 133

Table 70. Revenues by Sector and State ................................................................................ 134

Table 71. Number of Employees by Sector and State............................................................. 135
xiv

Table A-1. Locations Offering Geological and Geophysical Surveying in the

 Gulf of Mexico ..................................................................................................... A-1 

Table A-2 . Locations Offering Drilling Services in the Gulf of Mexico.................................. A-5 

Table A-3. Locations Offering Drilling Fluids in the Gulf of Mexico ..................................... A-8 

Table A-4. Locations Offering Drilling Tools and Supplies in the Gulf of Mexico ............... A-12 

Table A-5. Locations Offering Mud Logging Services in the Gulf of Mexico....................... A-19 

Table A-6 . Locations Offering MWD Services in the Gulf of Mexico .................................. A-20 

Table A-7. Locations Offering Cementing Services in the Gulf of Mexico ........................... A-22 

Table A-8. Locations Offering Formation Evaluation Services in the Gulf of Mexico .......... A-23 

Table A-9. Locations Offering Completion Services in the Gulf of Mexico.......................... A-28 

Table A-10. Locations Offering Fishing Tools and Services in the Gulf of Mexico ............... A-30 

Table A-11. Locations Offering Wellhead Equipment Services in the Gulf of Mexico........... A-31 

Table A-12. Locations Offering Accommodations in the Gulf of Mexico .............................. A-35 

Table A-13. Locations Offering Air Transportation Services in the Gulf of Mexico .............. A-36 

Table A-14. Locations Offering Water Transportation Services in the Gulf of Mexico .......... A-38 

Table A-15. Locations Offering Catering Services in the Gulf of Mexico.............................. A-45 

Table A-16. Locations Offering Workover Services in the Gulf of Mexico............................ A-46 

Table A-17. Locations Offering Diving Services in the Gulf of Mexico ................................ A-50 
1

1 E XE C UTIVE S UMMAR Y

1.1 PURPOSE

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) plays a 

key role in America’s energy supply by managing the mineral resources on nearly 160 million 

acres in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) region. Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), BOEMRE is required to integrate environmental values into 

its decision-making processes. The BOEMRE does this by preparing Environmental Impact 

Statements and other analyses that examine the impacts of its proposed actions and reasonable 

alternatives to those actions. The BOEMRE prepares site-specific analyses as well as Gulf-wide 

analyses to support the five-year schedule of federal oil and gas leasing required by the Outer 

Continental Self Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1344).

To support these analyses, BOEMRE developed MAG-PLAN, a two-stage input-output model to 

estimate employment, personal income, and similar economic impacts from OCS activities 

(USDOI BOEMRE 2005a). MAG-PLAN’s Stage 1 starts with BOEMRE’ estimates of the level 

of exploration, development, production, and infrastructure associated with a proposed OCS 

lease sale or set of sales. The model allocates industry expenditures among IMPLAN industry 

sectors1 and then distributes the expenditure-by-sector spending to onshore areas.

Nearly 60 percent of all offshore employment resulting from Stage 1 spending in the GOM goes 

to the oil services contract industry (Dismukes et al. 2003, Tables A1 and A2). This sector is 

distinct from the integrated and independent oil companies. The purpose of this project is to 

provide a better understanding of the wide variety of tasks subsumed under the term “oil 

services,” examine the company ownership patterns, and develop an approach to provide a 

refined estimate of the onshore allocations. That is, the analysis provides a more complete 

understanding of the geographical distribution and firm diversity to create a more solid 

foundation from which to complete a socioeconomic impact assessment. Additionally, the sector 

characterizations will be used to update the MAG-PLAN model under a future project.

1.2 METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES

Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG) identified 17 oil service industry sectors associated with 

searching for offshore oil and gas reservoirs, exploratory drilling, development drilling, and 

annual production. These are:

• Geological and geophysical prospecting (G&G)

• Contract drilling

• Drilling fluid supplies

• Drilling tools and supplies

• Mud logging

 

1 IMPLAN industry sectors are consistent with NAICS codes, see 

http://implan.us/v3/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=145&Itemid=138 for crosswalk tables.
2

• Measurement while drilling (MWD)

• Cementing

• Formation evaluation

• Completion

• Fishing (retrieval of lost or broken equipment from a borehole)

• Wellhead equipment

• Accommodations

• Air transport

• Water transport

• Catering

• Workovers

• Diving support

For the purpose of this report, ERG used separate categories for mud logging, MWD, and 

formation evaluation, though some of the literature considers the first two categories to be part of 

the last category. ERG did this for several reasons. First, some industry directories (see below) 

provide separate entries for these categories. Second, mud logging and MWD take place during 

the drilling operations while other specialties (e.g., formation evaluation through wireline 

logging, drillstem testing, or core sampling) happen after drilling is completed but before the 

decision whether to complete the well for production or abandonment.

ERG used multiple sources to develop lists of companies, their locations in the GOM region and, 

where possible, the number of employees and amount of revenue associated with each location:

• Marine Yellow Pages—2008 Gulf States (Marine Yellow Pages 2008)

• The Oil & Gas Directory 2008 (Oil & Gas Directory 2008)

• Subsea Oil & Gas Directory (Subsea Oil & Gas Directory 2008)

• 2008 Gulf Coast Oil Directory (GCOD 2008)

• D&B Million Dollar Database (D&B 2009)

• Manta.com (manta.com 2009)

ERG searched company websites and financial reports for public companies filed with the 

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to restrict the companies to those that work in the 

offshore GOM. The time frame for the corpus is 2007, the more recent year for which data were 

available at the start of the study. To facilitate the use of these data by other researchers, 

Appendix A contains the detailed location tables for each industry sector. We did not impute or 

estimate missing data at the location level. This means that the numbers of employees and 

revenues might be underestimates but they form a lower bound that is clearly identifiable. There 

are multiple approaches to filling the missing data;2

 

2 For example, such as dividing company revenues and the number of employees by the number of company 

locations to obtain the average revenues and number of employees by location. The average estimated would be 

used for each company location. 

not filling these gaps means that future users 

of these data will not have to undo any imputations before using their own methods. 
3

This study is a data-intensive effort with a focus on the role played by oil service contract 

industry in the economic web of onshore communities as reflected in MAG-PLAN. As such, it 

forms a companion study to Dismukes (2010) which provides a broader overview of oil services 

contract industry. In addition, although Chapter 4 illustrates how the contract services industry 

data might be incorporated with MAG-PLAN to a more explicit degree than it is currently, the 

calculation of updated onshore allocations will be completed in a future study.

1.3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Table 1 summarizes the sector-by-sector totals for the number of locations, 2007 revenues, and 

2007 employment. The line entries by sector will correspond to the totals seen on other tables for 

a sector. To estimate the entire contribution by oil service industries, ERG removed 52 duplicate 

entries where a location appeared in more than one sector. Oil and gas exploration and 

production contract service activities in the GOM support approximately 63,000 employees at 

about 1,140 locations, accounting for an estimated $19.3 billion in revenues. Some locations 

provided services for both onshore and offshore efforts, but there was insufficient information to 

prorate any of the employment or revenues to the offshore region.3

The term “coverage” is the ratio of the number of locations with at least employee or revenue 

data within a sector to the number of all locations within that sector. Some sectors have complete 

or near complete coverage (such as catering and drilling equipment suppliers); the sector with the 

worst coverage is air transportation.

 

4

One result of the study is the realization that, although the oil services contract industry contains 

giants such as Halliburton and Schlumberger that provide thousands of jobs and earn millions in 

revenue, it also contains hundreds of small companies. Most of these are privately owned and 

play an integral part in the economic life of the communities in which they are located. 

Companies with a good idea and a handful of employees can and do carve niches in which to 

operate. 

As a whole, ERG found information for approximately 76 

percent of the locations.

A second realization is the wide diversity of activities that support oil and gas operations in the 

GOM OCS—from preparing food, sailing vessels, building accommodations, flying helicopters, 

towing structures to final installation sites, and diving to using sophisticated mathematical 

algorithms to locate and characterize petroleum reservoirs. Rather than a broad brush stroke of a 

single color, a multi-colored palette is needed to illustrate the diversity and, in some cases, 

regionality of the industry subsectors. For example: 

 

3 ERG believes that the uncertainty of including locations that might offer services to onshore and offshore locations 

is smaller than the uncertainty introduced by the 24 percent of the locations for which no data could be identified.

4 Due primarily, but not solely, to PHI not reporting revenue or employment data by location.
4

Table 1 

2007 Locations, Revenues, and Employees in Oil Services Industries in the Gulf of Mexico Region

Service Sector 

Number of 

Locations

Number of 

Locations 

with Data Coverage

Total 

Reported 

Revenues 

(Millions)

Total Reported 

Employment

Geological & Geophysical Prospecting 104 87 84% $2,942 5,883 

Drilling 67 63 94% $6,332 11,088 

Drilling Fluid Supplies 89 58 65% $846 1,303

Drilling Equipment 179 174 97% $2,243 10,660

Mudlogging 14 13 93% $69 652 

Measurement While Drilling (MWD) 46 31 67% $675 2,150 

Cementing 21 14 67% $114 1,018

Reservoir Evaluation 117 78 67% $545 3,808

Completions 41 26 63% $822 2,450 

Fishing 11 11 100% $61 402 

Accomodations 21 13 62% $168 1,338

Air Transportation 64 23 36% $158 913

Water Transportation 144 106 74% $794 5,055 

Wellhead Equipment 110 85 77% $1,334 4,523 

Workover 86 59 69% $557 6,617

Catering 21 21 100% $439 4,270

Diving 60 51 85% $2,073 3,567 

Sum of All Sectors 1,195 912 85% $20,173 65,697 

Duplicates 52 41 79% $847 2,676

Total 1,143 871 76% $19,326 63,021

• The company locations of the G&G surveillance industry are primarily 

clustered in and around Houston, Texas, with about 90 percent or employees 

and 99 percent of identifiable revenue are attributed to locations in Texas. 

Lousiana claims only 17 out of the 102 locations. This sector includes some 

small companies with less than $1 million in revenue and as few as one or two 

employees, but there are also some giants with billions in revenue such as 

Schlumberger and Transocean. In general, the larger companies in this 

industry are public and the smaller are private. 

• The contract services industry is dominated by the drilling sector, which 

claims about one-third of the reported revenues. Schlumberger is the dominant 

company in this sector. ERG identified 15 companies that do drilling in the 

GOM, of which 14 are public, one private, and five are foreign. Of the 

locations, 79 percent are in Texas, and these locations claim 75 percent of 

employees and 93 percent of the revenue. Most of the companies are large, 

with less than 25 percent of their employees at the GOM locations (except 

Spartan Offshore Drilling LLC and Pride International, Inc., which have 72.7 

percent and 47.1 percent, respectively). This is consistent with the capital-
5

intensive and international natures of offshore drilling, particularly in deep 

water.

• The drilling fluid industry is fairly evenly split, with 46 locations in Texas and 

41 locations in Louisiana. It also includes one location each in Alabama and 

Mississippi. Louisiana claims slightly more than half of the revenue and 

employees, and the companies involved range from Halliburton, with 0.05 

percent of its employees at GOM locations, to three companies with 100 

percent of their employees at GOM locations. 

• The drilling tools and supplies industry is relatively evenly split between 

private and public companies, with six international companies. Texas has 99 

out of the 179 total locations, with the rest in Louisiana and one location in 

Mississippi. Texas claims 75 percent or employees and 78 percent of the 

revenue attributed to this industry. Similar to the drilling fluid industry, the 

companies range from Halliburton, with 0.1 percent of employees at GOM 

locations to several companies with 100 percent of employees in the GOM 

region. 

• The mud logging industry is composed of one large public company 

(Weatherford International) and a number of much smaller privately held 

firms, and all companies are domestic. This is a relatively small industry, with 

only 14 locations: nine in Texas and five in Louisiana. Employment is split 

basically in half between the two states, but Texas has almost 70 percent of 

the reported revenue in the industry.5

• The MWD drilling service industry is also evenly split between publicly 

traded and privately held firms, with four international companies. Of the 

locations, 63 percent are in Texas, and 37 percent are in Louisiana, with 

employment evenly split but 74 percent of the revenue in Texas. Company 

employment at GOM locations ranges from negligible to two companies, with 

100 percent employment in the GOM region. 

One company has only 0.03 percent of 

its employees working in the GOM, but the rest have over 50 percent and six 

of the companies have 100 percent, reflecting that many of the businesses 

involved in this industry are small and local. 

• The cementing services industry is composed of only four firms: two public, 

two private. There are 21 locations, distributed with 12 in Louisiana and nine 

in Texas, with a little over 60 percent of both employment and revenue in 

Louisiana. 

• The reservoir evaluation industry is about one-third privately held, two-thirds 

publicly traded, with even foreign firms involved. Slightly less than half of 

both the 117 locations and total employment is in Louisiana, along with 63 

 

5 The imbalance between employment and revenues is caused, primarily, by two locations. Diversified Well 

Logging, Inc. in Reserve, Louisiana claims 125 employees and $7.8 million in revenues while The Mudlogging 

Company USA, L.P. claims 145 employees but $16.74 million in revenues, see Table A-5. 
6

percent of the revenue. The rest of the employees and revenue are in Texas. 

Companies range from having 0.12 percent to having 100 percent of their 

employees at GOM locations.

• The well completion industry is about two-thirds public, and one-third private, 

with two international firms involved that are both privately held. Out of the 

41 locations, 46 percent are in Louisiana and 54 percent are in Texas, with 86 

percent of employment and 88 percent of the revenue in Texas, the remainder 

in Louisiana. Companies range from having 0.16 percent to 100 percent of 

their employees at GOM locations; most companies have fewer than 10 

percent. 

• The fishing industry is made up of four relatively small, privately held 

domestic firms. There are 11 locations: seven in Louisiana and four in Texas, 

but 84 percent of employment and 92 percent of the revenue in the industry is 

in Texas. Two out of the four firms have 100 percent of their employees at 

GOM locations.

• The accommodations industry has four public and seven private parent 

companies, with one international. Most of the companies in GOM locations 

are large, with only two out of 21 companies listing revenues less than $1 

million.6

• The air transport industry is composed entirely of domestic firms. Most 

locations are in Louisiana, with about one-third in Texas, four locations in 

Alabama, and one in Florida. About half of the companies are small, listing 

100 percent of employees at GOM locations, and many claiming less than $1 

million in revenue, in contrast to both wellhead and accommodations 

industries. 

The number of locations is evenly distributed between Louisiana and 

Texas, with one location each in Florida and Mississippi, but the majority of 

employees and revenue is found in Louisiana; Texas claims only 6 percent of 

the employees and one-quarter of the revenues.

• The water transport industry is mostly private firms with two international 

parent companies. Out of 100 companies that ERG found offering water 

transportation services in the GOM, 80 are single-location companies. There 

are multiple companies claiming fewer than 10 employees, and a number 

claiming just one or two. 65 percent of locations and over 80 percent of 

employees and revenue are in Louisiana, with most companies employing 100 

percent of their employees at GOM locations.

• The wellhead service industry is made up of about half publicly traded, half 

private companies, with two international parent companies. Most of the 

companies are large, with only one claiming 100 percent of employees in the 

 

6 The coverage of information is less than 100 percent, so this (along with all numbers in the summary) is likely to 

be a lower bound estimate.
7

GOM. The locations are fairly evenly split between Louisiana and Texas, but 

the majority of employees and revenue are found in Texas. 

• The workover service industry is mostly made up of public companies with 

two international parent companies. The locations are relatively evenly 

distributed between Texas and Louisiana, with one location in Mississippi. 

The companies range from having only 0.4 percent to 100 percent of 

employees in GOM locations. 

• Catering is dominated by private and domestic firms, with only three 

international and three public companies offering catering services. The 

companies range from having 0.1 percent of to 100 percent of their employees 

at GOM locations. Notably, over 90 percent of revenue and employees 

associated with catering are located in Louisiana. 

• The diving industry has three international parent companies but mostly 

consists of domestic private firms. The locations are concentrated in Texas 

and Louisiana, with one location in Alabama and five locations in Florida. 

The companies range from having 0.5 percent to 100 percent of employees in 

GOM locations.
9

2 INTR ODUC TION

2.1 BACKGROUND

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), as amended, established a policy for the 

management of oil and natural gas in the OCS and for protection of the marine and coastal 

environments. The OCSLA requires the preparation and maintenance of a current five-year 

schedule of proposed lease auctions. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires 

preparation of an environmental impact statement prior to any major Federal action including a 

five-year program, multi-region lease sales, and individual lease sales. The BOEMRE is the 

administrative agency responsible for leasing submerged Federal lands. The BOEMRE evaluates 

the environmental impacts of oil and gas activities in the OCS including onshore socio-economic 

impacts. 

To support these analyses, BOEMRE developed MAG-PLAN, a two-stage input-output model to 

estimate employment, personal income, and similar economic impacts from OCS activities 

(USDOI BOEMRE 2005a). MAG-PLAN’s Stage 1 starts with BOEMRE’ estimates of the level 

of exploration, development, production, and infrastructure associated with a proposed OCS 

lease sale or set of sales (called an exploration and development, or E&D, scenario). The model 

allocates industry expenditures among IMPLAN industry sectors and then distributes the 

expenditure-by-sector spending to onshore areas. Stage 2 uses input-output multipliers from 

IMPLAN, a commercial regional economic modeling program, to estimate employment, 

personal income, and other economic effects associated with different E&D scenarios by onshore 

area and type or impact (direct, indirect, induced, and total).

Section 2.2 reviews MAG-PLAN’s structure for socio-economic impact analysis and places the 

current study of the oil services contract industry within the larger analytical context of 

BOEMRE evaluations. Section 2.3 provides a brief overview of major stages in oil and gas 

exploration and development and describes the different oil and gas contract services industry 

sectors associated with each stage. The economic and financial characteristics as well as the 

geographical distribution of each oil and gas contract services industry sector are presented in 

Chapter 3. Chapter 4 illustrates how the information could be incorporated within the MAGPLAN analytical structure.

7

2.2 SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSES AND MAG-PLAN

The starting point for the socioeconomic analysis is the set of E&D scenarios developed by the 

BOEMRE Resource Evaluation office. A typical scenario description provides a list of activities 

that occur each year. These activity types are modeled in MAG-PLAN as activity functions. 

Table 2, taken from the Study Plan, cross-references the activity types in the E&D scenarios with 

the activity functions in MAG-PLAN. The “cradle-to-grave” approach is characteristic of 

BOEMRE impact analyses. 

 

7 Actual implementation of any revisions or updates to MAG-PLAN would be directed by BOEMRE under a 

separate contract.
10

Table 2 

Activity Function Codes and E&D Scenario Mapping

Activity Type in E&D Scenario Activity Function in MAG-PLAN

Exploratory Wells Drilled Geological and Geophysical Prospecting

Exploratory Drilling

Non-Production Wells Drilled Development Drilling

Production Wells Drilled

Development Drilling and Completion

Production Operations and Maintenance (O&M) including 

workovers

Platforms Added 

Platform Fabrication and Installation (Average cost)

Platform Fabrication and Installation (Fixed Platform)

Platform Fabrication and Installation (Compliant Tower)

Platform Fabrication and Installation (Tension Leg 

Platform)

Platform Fabrication and Installation (SPAR) 

Platform Fabrication and Installation (Floating Production, 

Storage, and Offloading)

New Gas Processing Facilities Onshore Gas Processing Construction

Gas Production (Bcf) Onshore Gas Processing O&M

New Gas Processing Facilities Offshore Gas Processing Construction

Gas Production (Bcf) Offshore Gas Processing O&M

Pipeline Miles Added Pipeline Construction

Pipeline Miles Added Pipeline O&M

Platforms Removed Decommission Platform

Platforms Removed Decommission Platform with Explosives

Oil Spill, Reaching Shore Onshore Oil Spill

Oil Spill, Not Reaching Shore Offshore Oil Spill

Source: Based on USDOI, BOEMRE (2005a). 

As can be seen in Table 2, the activity types in an E&D scenario do not necessarily have a 1:1 

correspondence to MAG-PLAN activity functions. For example, remote sensing to identify 

where to drill (i.e., geological and geophysical prospecting) might take place before before a 

lease bid, before drilling an exploratory well, or after an exploratory well if data collected while 

drilling the well (e.g., velocity) are used to process the G&G data properly (DeCort, personal 

communication, 2010).8

Each activity function is characterized by estimates for:

Likewise, the type of platform added will depend, in part, on the water 

depth in which it is located.

• Total shock (i.e., the level of spending associated with each unit of activity 

such as drilling an exploratory well).

• Labor share.

• Economic sectors among which the non-labor spending is allocated.

 

8 Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 present ERG’s rationale for including G&G as part of the activity function for drilling 

exploratory wells in MAG-PLAN
11

• Onshore areas among which the labor spending is distributed.

MAG-PLAN allocates industry expenditures among IMPLAN industry sectors, distributes the 

expenditure-by-sector spending to onshore areas, and uses input-output multipliers from 

IMPLAN to estimate direct, indirect, and induced effects on employment, personal income, and 

other economic parameters. This project focuses on how different oil services contract industry 

sectors feed into the various activity functions and the onshore areas among which the spending 

is distributed. In particular, this project focuses on the geological and geophysical prospecting, 

exploratory drilling, development drilling, and production operations and maintenance activities. 

The following section walks the reader through the different oil services sectors within the 

activity functions.

2.3 OVERVIEW OF SELECTED MAG-PLAN ACTIVITY FUNCTIONS

Section 2.3 provides a background description for each of the oil services contract industry 

sectors researched in this project. The section is organized by MAG-PLAN activity function: 

• Section 2.3.1: geological and geophysical prospecting

• Section 2.3.2: exploratory well drilling

• Section 2.3.3: development well drilling

• Section 2.3.4: production and operations

2.3.1 Geological and Geophysical Prospecting

Section 2.3.1.1 reviews the geological and geophysical (G&G) methods that form the basis of the 

industry. Section 2.3.1.2 identifies three different areas of specialization within the industry. The 

data sources and processing methods used to identify firms within the BOEMRE GOM 

economic area are presented in Section 1.2. We focus the analysis on these firms because the 

expenses they incur have socioeconomic effects within the region. In contrast, firms that are 

based outside the region usually send in specialized teams to conduct G&G work. Much of the 

expenses incurred by these teams flow out of the region, with little impact on the regional 

economy.

In developing the profile for G&G, ERG also found entries for companies that manufacture 

instruments, such as gravimeters, that are used in the surveys as well as companies that write 

software to process such data but that do not offer data processing services. ERG excluded such 

companies because they support the G&G industry rather than collect, process, or broker the 

data. In addition, ERG excluded data storage companies that hold core samples and other data 

for third parties. The companies excluded show a mix of large and small companies similar to 

that seen in the companies retained for the analysis.

2.3.1.1 Geological and Geophysical Survey Methods

2.3.1.1.1 Seismic

Seismology is the study of the vibration of the earth’s interior caused by natural and unnatural 

forces. Within the earth’s crust, different types of rock have different acoustical characteristics. 

As a sound wave passes through different layers, the way it is reflected back to the surface 

reveals some of the characteristics of the rock layers. In offshore surveys, the reflected sound 
12

waves are picked up by hydrophones (sound detectors). Figure 1 shows an offshore seismic 

vessel towing multiple lines of hydrophone streamers.

Source: Schlumberger (2009). 

Figure 1. Marine seismic vessel towing multiple hydrophone streamers. 

Seismic surveys can be conducted in two-dimensional (2D), three-dimensional (3D), and fourdimensional (4D) formats. In a 2D survey, the sound source and the hydrophones are moved 

along a straight line. The result is a vertical cross-section of the rock layers beneath the survey 

line. In a 3D survey, the sound hydrophones are spread out in a wide array, and the source is 

moved from point to point within the area. The result is analogous to a set of 2D surveys that 

form a cube representing the rock layers underneath the survey area. 3D surveys are considered 

to have superior resolution to 2D surveys. However, 3D surveys require more powerful 

computers to process the massive array of data. Time is the fourth dimension in a 4D survey. To 

create a 4D survey, a 3D survey is replicated at different points in time. 4D surveys are primarily 

used to map the movement of fluid in producing oil and gas reservoirs (USDOE, EIA 2009a).

2.3.1.1.2 Gravimetric

Variations in the earth’s gravity field are caused by changes in the density and structure of the 

underlying rock layers. These minute variations are measured by a gravimeter, which contains a 

weighted spring that is minutely stretched downwards where the gravity is stronger. Gravimetric 

surveys can be conducted on the ground or from the air (USDOI BOEMRE 2009a; STA 2006).

2.3.1.1.3 Magnetic

A second method of exploration is the Magnetic method. Most oil occurs in sedimentary rocks 

that are nonmagnetic. Igneous and metamorphic rocks rarely contain oil and are highly 

magnetized. By conducting a magnetic survey over a given area, a prospector can determine 

where oil-bearing sedimentary rock is more likely to be found. Two types of magnetic 
13

instruments are used to measure the slight difference in magnetism in rocks, the field balance and 

the airborne magnetometer. The field balance is used on the earth’s surface to measure 

magnetism in specific locations. The airborne magnetometer is used to measure the magnitude 

of the earth’s total magnetic field over a large area. Magnetic variations arise primarily from 

igneous basement rocks, so magnetic surveys are often combined with other geophysical 

prospecting methods to identify hydrocarbon bearing strata (STA 2006; ETI 1984).

2.3.1.2 Types of Geological and Geophysical Services

For the purpose of describing the geological and geophysical contract services industry, ERG 

identified three activities:

• Data acquisition

• Data processing

• Data brokering

The first subcategory consists of companies with the vessels, aircraft, and equipment to perform 

the surveys, such as Fugro International. As is evident from the survey descriptions, geophysical 

surveys can generate vast quantities of data that require intense, complex computational 

manipulation before they can be interpreted. The companies and individuals in the data 

processing subcategory specialize in such intellectual and computational capabilities. The 

geophysical data, whether in processed or unprocessed form, retain their value to anyone 

interested in a particular region. Data brokers develop libraries of seismic and other geophysical 

data and make them available for sale.

2.3.2 Exploratory Well Drilling

An oil and gas company (an “operator”) bids for the rights to drill and produce oil and gas from 

the Federal Outer Continental Shelf in the GOM. The operator has obtained knowledge about the 

underlying formations and the potential for oil and gas through geological and geophysical 

surveying, as discussed above.

The operator first develops a drilling location, then a well drilling cost and then obtains approval 

to drill a well. At this point, the process of drilling an exploratory offshore well begins. Both 

Bommer (2008) and Van Dyke (1997) note that operating companies do not have the personnel, 

drilling rigs, and expertise for drilling operations and that this work is contracted out to drilling 

companies (see NAICS 213112). The operator first obtains a drilling permit, then develops the 

well prognosis, delineating specifics such as hole size by depth, drill bit by depth, mud weight 

and makeup at depth, casing design (size, weight, and thread type, along with specific setting 

depths), well logging program to be used, cementing design by casing and hole size, and 

directional well design if the hole is not straight. Then the operator and a drilling company sign a 

contract that delineates the well specifications and equipment and services to be provided by 

both parties, including specialized services provided by other companies. The drilling contractor 

might be paid per foot drilled (footage contract), per day (daywork contract), or per well (turnkey 

contract).

2.3.2.1 Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (MODUs)

The type of drilling rig used for an exploratory well depends, to some extent, on the water depth:
14

• Barges. Barges are the earliest type of 

MODU. The barge is floated to a shallowwater location and then ballasted to sit on the 

bottom (The Louis Berger Group 2004). 

Drilling barges can operate in water depths 

from 3 to 25 feet (Hercules Offshore 2009; 

Nabors Industries 2009). ERG examined the 

BOEMRE Platform Masters database and 

found approximately 900 structures located in 

water depths of 25 feet or less (USDOI 

BOEMRE 2009b). ERG also examined the 

activity by water depth within the last year 

and found that four leases and nine platforms had been activated and eight 

wells had been drilled in water depths of 16.5 feet (5 meters) or less. If we 

look at water depths between 0 and 33 feet (10 meters) for the same period, a 

total of 27 leases and 13 platforms were activated and 30 wells were drilled 

while for the 300 meter to 1,500 meter water depth (about 984 feet to 4,920 

feet) 361 leases were activated and 100 wells were drilled (USDOI BOEMRE

2009c). Thus, it is appropriate to include contractors that operate drilling 

barges in the analysis although the highest level of interest is in the deepwater drill ships. 

• Jackups. A jackup rig has a barge hull 

through which three or four legs can be 

jacked up or down. The legs might be 

open truss (with crisscross members) or 

columnar. Depending on the rig, it might 

be towed or move to the drill site under 

its own power while the legs are jacked 

up out of the water. Once on location, 

the legs are jacked down until they touch 

the seafloor. Reported water depth limits 

range from 350 feet (107 meters) to 535 

feet (160 meters) depending on the source (Van Dyke 1997; The Louis Berger 

Group 2004).

• Submersibles. A submersible drilling rig is towed 

to the location and submerged until it sits on the 

seabed. This type of rig is limited to water depths of 

80 feet or shallower (Dismukes 2010). 

Source: rigzone.com 2009, Hercules 01

Source: rigzone.com, Cecil Provine

Source: Noble 

Corporation (2009).
15

• Semisubmersibles. Semisubmersibles’ working 

decks are supported by columns on hulls or 

pontoons. Depending on the rig, it might be 

towed or move to the drill site under its own 

power. When on location, the hulls or pontoons 

are flooded such that most of the mass of the 

structure lies below the water surface. Because 

of this, the structure shows little front-to-back or 

side-to-side rolling or pitching. The up-anddown motion still continues, but this is addressed 

by the riser system (see Section 2.3.2.2). The 

structures either are anchored or use dynamic 

positioning to keep in place.

• Drill ships. A drill ship has a derrick near the 

middle and a “moon pool” below the derrick 

through which tools can be passed to the sea floor. 

These sometimes massive ships are very mobile 

and can drill in very deep water. The structures 

are either anchored or use dynamic positioning to 

stay in place. New drill ships might approach 835 

feet in length, have quarters for 100 to 200 people, 

and be able to drill in water depths up to 12,000 

feet, with a total drilling depth of 40,000 feet 

(Transocean 2010, Offshore Magazine 2008).

An area of high interest is the deep-water GOM. As of July 2008, 31 vessels capable of drilling 

in 3,500 feet or more of water were in the GOM. Table 3 lists these ships, categorizing them by 

how they stay on location—by conventional mooring or by dynamic positioning. 

2.3.2.2 Drilling Contractor

The drilling contractor provides a mobile offshore drilling unit, or MODU, suitable for the water 

depth and well type to be drilled. (Section 3.2 discusses the types of MODUs and drilling 

contractors in more detail.) Offshore drilling operations are distinguished by the need for a 

“riser” between the surface of the water and the seabed. A riser is a series of steel pipe with balland-slip joints that permit the pipe to move up, down, or bend to accommodate the wave-induced 

movement of the rig.

Source: Ocean Endeavor, 

Offshore Magazine (2008).

Source: Discoverer Enterprise, 

Offshore Magazine (2008).
16

Table 3 

Deep-Water Drilling Vessels in the Gulf of Mexico as of July 2008

Company Name Type

Water Depth 

Rating 

Equipped (ft.)

Water Depth 

Rating Design 

(ft.)

Drilling 

Depth 

Rating (ft.)

Conventionally Moored Rigs

Atwood Oceanics, Inc. Ocean America SS 5,000 5,500 30,000 

Atwood Oceanics, Inc. Ocean Baroness SS 6,500 7,000 35,000 

Atwood Oceanics, Inc. Ocean Quest SS 3,500 4,285 25,000 

Atwood Oceanics, Inc. Ocean Valiant SS 5,000 5,500 30,000 

Atwood Oceanics, Inc. Ocean Victory SS 5,000 6,000 25,000 

Atwood Oceanics, Inc. Ocean Endeavor SS 8,000 10,000 35,000

Atwood Oceanics, Inc. Ocean Monarch SS 8,000 10,000 35,000 

Noble Drilling Corporation Noble Amos Runner SS 6,600 6,600 30,000 

Noble Drilling Corporation Noble Paul Romano SS 6,000 6,000 28,000 

Noble Drilling Corporation Noble Jim Thompson SS 6,000 6,000 25,000 

Noble Drilling Corporation Noble Clyde Boudreaux SS 7,500 10,000 35,000 

Noble Drilling Corporation Noble Lorris Bouzigard SS 4,000 4,000 25,000

Transocean Inc. Deepwater Nautilus SS 8,000 8,000 30,000 

Transocean Inc. Transocean Marianas SS 7,000 7,000 25,000 

Transocean Inc. GSF Celtic Sea SS 5,750 5,750 28,000 

Transocean Inc. Henry Goodrich SS 5,000 5,000 30,000 

Dynamically Positioned Rigs

Diamond Offshore Drilling, 

Inc. Ocean Confidence SS 10,000 10,000 35,000 

Dolphin Drilling Ltd. Belford Dolphin DS 10,000 10,000 37,000

ENSCO Offshore Company Ensco 7500 SS 7,500 8,000 35,000

Transocean Inc.

Discoverer Clear 

Leader DS 10,000 12,000 40,000 

Transocean Inc. Discoverer Americas DS 10,000 12,000 40,000 

Transocean Inc. Discoverer Inspiration DS 10,000 12,000 40,000 

Transocean Inc. Deepwater Millennium DS 10,000 10,000 35,000 

Transocean Inc. Discoverer Enterprise DS 10,000 10,000 35,000 

Transocean Inc. Discoverer Spirit DS 10,000 10,000 35,000 

Transocean Inc. GSF C.R. Luigs DS 10,000 12,000 35,000 

Transocean Inc. Deepwater Horizon SS 10,000 10,000 30,000 

Transocean Inc. GSF Explorer DS 8,000 10,000 30,000 

Transocean Inc. Development Driller I SS 7,500 7,500 37,500 

Transocean Inc. Development Driller II SS 7,500 7,500 37,500 

Transocean Inc. Cajun Express SS 8,500 8,500 25,000 

Notes: SS: semisubmersible

DS: drill ship

Source: Offshore Magazine (2008).
17

The drilling contractor provides the following personnel:

• A rig supervisor (toolpusher).

• A driller, who operates the controls and thus is directly responsible for the 

operations on the rig floor.

• A derrickman, who watches the condition of the drilling fluid and, if there is 

no automated pipe handling system, handles the top of the pipe when putting 

it into or taking it out of the hole.

• Rotary helpers (floormen), who handle the bottom of the pipe when putting it 

into or taking it out of the hole, including working the tongs (large wrenches) 

to screw or unscrew the pipe.

• Roustabouts, who load and unload equipment and supplies from the boat that 

brings them to the offshore rig. They are also responsible for maintaining, 

repairing, and cleaning the rig.

Ancillary commodity businesses support the drilling contractor: retailers of drilling fluid (also 

called “mud”) and specialty chemicals to tailor the drilling fluid to the physical and chemical 

characteristics of the different geological strata through which the hole is drilled. Even if the 

muds and chemicals are manufactured outside the GOM economic area, the retailer’s portion of 

the cost would circulate to local households. Drilling fluid companies and suppliers are discussed 

in Section 3.3.

Similarly, offshore drilling operations need drill bits, tubulars, and other downhole materials that 

are used in both offshore and onshore operations. Future efforts in this area might involve 

discussions with Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. (the developers of IMPLAN) and the Census 

Bureau to ascertain the extent to which these commodities are included in IMPLAN Sector 27 

and NAICS 213111. Companies that offer drilling equipment are discussed in Section 3.4.

2.3.2.3 During Drilling

As the hole is being drilled, several specialties might come into play. A “mud logging” company 

monitors the condition and content of the drilling fluid and drill cuttings as it surfaces and 

crosses the mud shaker. The cuttings can be examined for parameters such as porosity, the 

composition of the drill cuttings (to indicate what zone is being drilled), or traces of oil 

(indicating a potential productive zone). The returning drilling fluid might contain gas from a 

productive formation; this is often checked by chromatographic analysis at the site. A mud log 

will also record the drilling rate: by the time the cuttings reach the surface, the drill bit is deeper 

than their source, and a mud logger will calculate this delay to determine the correct depth for the 

cuttings. Section 3.5 discusses companies that offer mud logging services. Van Dyke (1997) and 

Bommer (2008) are the sources for Section 2.3.2.3.

“Measurement while drilling,” or MWD, is a guidance system that measures the direction of 

the hole as well as a data collection system. A nonmagnetic drill collar is placed just behind the 

drill bit. In it are accelerometers, magnetometers, and batteries that transmit the data as a series 

of pulses (sonic or pressure) in the returning mud. At the surface, a transducer records the pulses 

and a computer program calculates the direction of the well while it is being drilled. MWD 
18

systems measure temperature and pressure while some also measure formation characteristics 

through resistivity, porosity, and sonic velocity. MWD makes it unnecessary to stop drilling in 

order to update these measurements (Schlumberger, 2010). Section 3.6 summarizes the 

companies that offer MWD services.

At some depth, possibly specified in the drilling contract, drilling is stopped and the drill string is 

removed (“tripped out”). The bore hole still contains the drilling fluid, which prevents it from 

collapsing. A surface casing—a large-diameter steel pipe—in set into the hole (“tripped in”). 

This task involves special elevators that hold a piece of casing so that it can be lowered into the 

hole, a float collar for the cementing operation placed one or two pipe lengths above the guide 

shoe (a fitting placed at the bottom of the casing with a rounded profile to prevent the pipe from 

hanging up on irregularities in the bore hole), slips (wedge-shaped pieces of metal with teeth or 

other means of preventing the casing from slipping down the hole), and tongs to provide the 

correct torque on the casing string. Attachments to the casing string might include centralizers to 

center the casing pipe in the middle of the borehole, and scratchers to remove the filter cake that 

forms on the wall from the drilling fluid so the cement can make a better bond. While onshore 

operations frequently make use of companies that specialize in setting casing pipe, this operation 

is more commonly handled by the offshore drilling contractor.

Cementing the casing is another task that might be performed by a separate contractor or by 

drilling contractor personnel.9

After the cement has hardened, blowout preventers (BOPs) and the first part of the wellhead are 

installed on the casing at the seafloor.

The cement performs several functions. It supports the casing and 

bonds it to the bore hole. It seals the space between the casing and the hole (annulus), thus 

preventing fluids from one rock layer migrating to another and prevents and fluids sent down the 

well bore from migrating into a rock layer (lost circulation). A good cement job will have cement 

completely surrounding the casing pipe with no voids or weak spots. Equipment that is used in 

the well is hung from the casing, so it must be securely sealed and set. A bottom plug precedes 

the cement, forced down the center of the casing pipe by high-pressure pumps. The bottom plug 

separates the cement from the drilling mud to avoid any cross-contamination. As the cement 

moves down, the drilling fluid is forced out of a hole in the shoe and flows up the annulus. When 

the bottom plug reaches the float collar, pressure is increased to break a membrane in the plug. 

The cement moves down the last length or two of casing, out the bottom hole, and up the 

annulus. A solid top plug follows the last of the cement and is forced down the casing pipe by 

displacement fluid. When the top plug reaches the bottom plug, the pumps are stopped and the 

cement is prevented from flowing back into the casing by the one-way valve in the float collar 

and the weight of the displacement fluid. Section 3.7 presents the companies that provide 

cementing services to the offshore oil and gas industry.

10

 

9 In deep water operations, cementing is frequently performed by the drilling contractor.

After pressure testing indicates that there are no leaks, 

drilling continues with a smaller-diameter drill bit. The smaller bit drills through the float collar, 

cement in the last lengths of casing pipe, and the casing shoe, and begins making a new hole. 

One or more additional casings are set as the well is drilled to final depth. Complete wellhead 

10 Risers connect the BOP to the vessel.
19

installation occurs at the point when a well is put into production. The companies offering 

wellhead equipment are discussed Section 3.11.

2.3.2.4 Evaluating the Formation

Once the well is drilled to final depth, the operator must decide whether the well has struck oil or 

gas that can be produced economically. If so, the well will be completed and put into production. 

If not, the well will be plugged and abandoned. Several methods are used to evaluate formations, 

such as wireline logging, drill stem testing, and core evaluation. Companies offering such 

services are discussed in Section 3.8. Van Dyke (1997) and Bommer (2008) are the sources for 

Section 2.3.2.4.

Wireline logging involves lowering instruments to the bottom of the hole on a wire or line. As 

the instruments are slowly reeled back up to the surface, they measure and record data on the 

properties of the different rock layers. The data are transmitted back to a mobile computer 

laboratory, where they are displayed, printed on log forms, or transmitted elsewhere for further 

analysis. 

Drill stem testing is another method of evaluating the potential production from a formation. In 

this case, the instrumentation is attached to the end of the drill stem and lowered to the bottom of 

the hole. Once in place, the crew expands a packer to seal off the formation of interest and opens 

ports in the testing tool. Fluids flow through the ports into the drill stem, where the flowing 

pressure is measured. (The fluids can be gas, oil, water, or a mixture thereof.) 

Cores taken from the side of the borehole are a third method of formation evaluation. A 

“sidewall core gun” is lowered into the hole on a wireline. The “gun” has a series of metal tubes 

that are connected to the gun barrel by a steel cable. Behind each tube is an explosive charge. 

When the gun is in position, the crew sends a signal down the wire to ignite one of the charges. 

The tube is driven into the wall of the borehole. As the gun is winched out of the hole, the 

connecting cable pulls the rock sample out of the wall and brings it to the surface. 

2.3.2.5 Completing/Abandoning the Well 

Having determined that the formation would be economical to produce, an operator might take 

one of several actions.

If the well is in shallow water, it might be completed as a productive well protected by a caisson, 

a single pile driven over the well that supports a boat landing with navigational aids. Such a 

structure contains no production equipment, nor is it connected to a larger platform that has 

production equipment (USDOI BOEMRE 2002). The drilling crew runs the last set of pipe, 

called the production tubing, into the hole. The production tubing may be jointed pipe or coiled 

tubing; the latter comes to the drilling site coiled on a large reel. For offshore operations, the 

tubing has a subsurface safety valve that shuts in the event of a severe storm to prevent the loss 

of hydrocarbons if the wellhead or structure is damaged or lost. The BOPs are removed and 

replaced with a production wellhead from which the production tubing is hung. The collection of 

valves on top of the wellhead that control the flow is called a wellhead or “Christmas tree.”

If the well is in deeper water and productive, it may be temporarily abandoned. In this case, all 

productive zones are isolated by plugs. It is understood that the bore hole will be entered at some 
20

point in the future (USDOI BOEMRE 2002). For offshore operations, a productive exploratory 

well might be temporarily abandoned while the company has the production structure designed, 

built, and installed. 

If the well is deemed not productive, it might be permanently abandoned. Specific 

requirements regarding abandonment are given in 30 CFR 250.1710–1717 (USDOI BOEMRE

2002). Cement plugs are placed to isolate salt water, fresh water, and uneconomical hydrocarbon 

intervals from leaking to and contaminating other strata. The intervening gaps between the plugs 

are filled with drilling fluid. The surface casing is cut back to the seabed and a cap is placed on 

the stub. 

Because an exploratory well has the potential to be completed, ERG discusses companies that 

offer these services in Section 3.9. If the well is temporarily or permanently abandoned, the 

plugging is often done by cementing specialists (see Section 3.7). Services for completing the 

well, i.e., putting it into production—such as perforating the casing, acidizing, and/or fracturing 

the well—are discussed in Section 3.8.

2.3.2.6 Unusual Operations

Sometimes a piece of pipe or equipment gets stuck in the hole. This can happen for a number of 

reasons, such as:

• Part of the hole can collapse around the pipe, such as when the water in the 

drilling fluid interacts with shale in the formation. The shale expands and the 

debris fills the hole. 

• The hole has an unintended bend (“dogleg”). The drill pipe rubs against a side 

of the dogleg, creating a smaller hole in the side of the main borehole (a 

“keyseat”). Because the keyseat is narrower in diameter than the main 

borehole, the drilling collar jams when the drill string is pulled from the hole.

• The drilling fluid is at higher pressure than formation pressure. The mud 

builds up on the wall of the borehole such that the diameter of the hole is 

reduced. Once the pipe stops rotating (e.g., when another length of pipe is 

added to the drill string), the pressure of the drilling fluid forces the drilling 

collars and/or pipe into the mud and sticks them firmly to the wall of the hole.

• A pipe parts due to fatigue, overpulling, or thread damage. This can leave 

drilling bits and equipment stuck in the borehole. The crew must fish the 

metal out of the hole. 

For the first three situations, the drilling crew will attempt to free the stuck pipe. This might 

involve pumping a lubricant down the drill stem and up the annulus to where the pipe is stuck. 

Oil was once used as the lubricant, hence the term “spotting oil” to describe the activity. In a 

second approach, a device called a drilling jar, hydraulic jar, or bumper sub is attached to the top 

of the drill stem and allows very heavy blows to be struck upward or downward on the pipe. If a 

combination of spotting oil and jarring is not sufficient to free the pipe, the driller might position 

a “string shot” a few lengths above the point at which the pipe is stuck. The driller rotates the 

drill string to unscrew the joint as the charge is set off. The drill crew brings the portion of the 
21

drill string above the sticking point out of the hole. At this point, events proceed as in the fourth 

situation above—in which a piece of pipe or equipment is stuck in the hole (Van Dyke 1997).

Fishing might be done by a drilling contractor or by a specialized contractor. The fishing 

company will attempt to grab the end of the stuck metal with a specialized device that goes either 

over the outside of the pipe (“overshot”) or inside the pipe (“spear”), grips the pipe firmly, and 

hauls the entire string out of the borehole (Van Dyke 1997). Section 3.10 describes some of the 

companies offering fishing services.

2.3.3 Development Well Drilling

2.3.3.1 Development Drilling

Development wells may be drilled by one of several methods:

• A cantilevered jack-up rig, which has a feature that permits its drilling 

platform to be extended over an existing structure.

• A platform drilling rig temporarily or permanently installed on the structure 

itself. All production systems but the seabed completion and floating 

production, storage, and offloading (FPSO) systems illustrated in Figure 2

show platform drilling rigs. Figure 3 is from Platform Grace in the Pacific 

OCS. The gray beams running horizontally across the top are the rails on 

which the platform rig would sit. Six circular wellslots are visible on the 

topside level below the rails. After a well is drilled and completed, the rig is 

moved along the rails to the next available wellslot.

• Any of the mobile offshore drilling units, or MODUs (such as barges, jack-up, 

submersible, semi-submersible, and drill ships) described in Section 2.3.2.1.

• Figure 2 illustrates the types of offshore production systems in use or 

scheduled to be in operation in the GOM.

• The rigs and costs associated with drilling development wells in the offshore 

will differ according to the type of production system planned for the field 

(see Figure 2). Helmerich & Payne, Inc., Nabors Industries, Ltd., Noble 

Corporation, Pride International, Inc., and Rowan Companies, Inc. mention 

that they offer platform drilling rig services (Helmerich & Payne 2008a; 

Nabors Industries 2008; Noble Corporation 2007; Pride International 2008; 

Rowan Companies 2008).
22

Source: Richardson et al. (2008)

Figure 2. Offshore development systems.
23

Source: Kaplan (1988).

Figure 3. Wellslots on Platform Grace. 

2.3.3.2 Completion

Once the well has been drilled and determined to be economically viable, it is completed as a 

producing well. The drilling crew runs the last set of pipe, called the production tubing, into the 

hole. The production tubing may be jointed pipe or coiled tubing, with the vast majority being 

jointed tubing. The latter comes to the drilling site coiled on a large reel. For offshore operations, 

the tubing has a subsurface safety valve that shuts in the event of a severe storm to prevent the 

loss of hydrocarbons if the wellhead or structure is damaged or lost. The blowout preventers are 

removed and replaced with a production wellhead from which the production tubing is hung. The 

collection of valves on top of the wellhead that controls the flow is called a wellhead or 

“Christmas tree.” Companies and locations that provide wellhead equipment are discussed in 

Section 3.11.

Most wells have a production casing or liner cemented in place to prevent the collapse of the 

well and to seal and isolate the productive zone. The well cannot produce until holes are made to 

connect the productive zone with the well. The well is perforated by detonating shaped charges 

at the correct depth. A gun carrying the charges is lowered into the well on a wireline, 

positioned, and fired. The charges penetrate the casing, cement, and some distance into the 

formation.

Sometimes a well is swabbed to start the flow of fluids to it. Swabbing involves pulling a 

rubber-faced cylinder (called a swab) up the tubing. The cylinder touches the wall of the tubing; 
24

pulling the swab up reduces the pressure beneath the swab and sucks the formation fluids into the 

wellbore.

Production might be stimulated by one or more treatments. Acidizing a well involves pumping 

acid (hydrochloric acid for limestone or hydrofluoric acid for some clay and sandstone) down the 

well to dissolve part of the formation. This increases the permeability of the formation near the 

well and thus can improve the flow. Hydraulic fracturing involves pumping enough fluid 

(usually water) at a pressure that is high enough to open cracks in the formation. Pumping more 

fluid into the formation causes the cracks to grow in length and width. Proppants, such as sand, 

are added to the fluid to flow into the cracks and keep them open once the pressure is removed. 

Fracturing, then, can be more effective over a larger distance from the well bore than acidizing. 

If the production formation is an unconsolidated sandstone, sand will flow into the well along 

with the oil and/or gas. To prevent this, the well is completed with a gravel pack. The 

perforation spaces running from the production tubing through the casing and into the formation 

are packed with sand or gravel with specific size specifications. The pack prevents all but the 

finest formation sand from entering the well and a screen is placed in the well to keep the gravel 

in place.

Companies and locations that offer completion services are discussed in Section 3.9.

2.3.3.3 Accommodations

Dismukes (2010) describes two types of physical accommodations—those located on the 

production structure itself and those located on an accommodation vessel (“Flotel”). Dismukes 

(2010) also noted that energy companies are trying to improve living conditions (e.g., privacy 

and recreation possibilities) to retain skilled labor. Companies providing both types of services 

are discussed in Section 3.12.

2.3.3.4 Air Transport

Helicopters are a key method of transporting workers and supplies to and from production 

platforms, drilling rigs, and specialized vessels. The aircraft come in a range of sizes capable of 

transporting one to 25 passengers, with the largest having a range of about 500 miles. Most 

service companies have a mix of different-sized aircraft to best meet the needs of each trip. As 

production operations grow in the deep offshore, so grows the need for helicopter services 

(Dismukes 2010; see also for pictures and descriptions of various aircraft).

The Louis Berger Group, Inc. (2004) identified 247 heliport facilities that support the oil and gas 

industry within the Gulf region. The majority (122) were located in Texas with 81 facilities in 

Louisiana, 34 in Florida, six in Mississippi, and four in Alabama. Dismukes (2010) identified 26 

major locations for helicopter services; see Figure 4. 
25

Source: Dismukes (2010).

Figure 4. Locations of major helicopter service providers.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) National Flight Data Center facilities database lists 

heliports and their owners (FAA 2009a). Oil companies such as Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Shell 

are listed as heliport owners, as are outdated ownership names such as Tenneco, Seagull Energy, 

and Unocal. A search of the Helicopter Association International membership database for 

offshore operations lists Anadarko Petroleum, Chevron, El Paso, ExxonMobil, Noble Drilling 

Services, and Shell. Chevron’s Gulf of Mexico Shelf Business Unit in Picayune, Mississippi, 

lists 28 helicopters as part of its operation (HAI 2009). An industry source confirmed that some 

large oil companies have their own helicopter operations that supply about 90 percent of their air 

services. However, the long distances needed to reach deep-water operations require larger 

aircraft. Thus, an oil company that owns helicopters might find it cost-efficient to rent larger 

aircraft from a commercial provider for such trips (Thibodeaux 2009a).

The FAA is rolling out a new satellite-based air traffic control system called NextGen. In 

partnership with the Helicopter Association International, platform owners, helicopter operators, 

and platform/helicopter companies are scheduled to introduce initial satellite coverage to the 

GOM in November 2009. FAA notes that the lack of radar coverage over water limits the 

transportation services that can be provided by air due to the separation procedures needed to 

maintain safety. Under the agreement, FAA will install automatic dependent surveillancebroadcast (ADS-B) systems that use GPS satellite signals to better identify an aircraft’s location 

throughout the flight on oil and gas platforms, the platform owners will supply space for the 

ADS-B systems, and the helicopter owners will equip some of their fleet with ADS-B avionics as 

well as providing transportation to and from the platforms (FAA 2009b). With the introduction 

State/City PHI OLOG ERA State/City PHI OLOG ERA

Alabama 14 New Iberia

1 Theodore 15 New Orleans

Louisiana 16 Schriever

2 Abbeville 17 Patterson

3 Boothville 18 Venice

4 Cameron Texas

5 Creole 19 Corpus Christi

6 Fourchon 20 Freeport

7 Galliano 21 Fulton

8 Harahan 22 Galveston

9 Houma 23 Port O'Connor

10 Johnson's Bayou 24 Rockport

11 Lafayette 25 Sabine

12 Lake Charles 26 Sabine Pass

13 Morgan City
26

of the NextGen system, there is the potential for increased air traffic to serve the offshore oil and 

gas industry.

Air transportation in the offshore GOM oil and gas industry, then, is provided by a mix of inhouse and commercial services. ERG has not been able to identify the number of employees or 

aircraft in corporate use through any of the company documents, such as 10-K forms. ERG is 

thus unable to estimate the relative split between the in-house and commercial segments of this 

industry sector. The commercial providers are discussed in Section 3.13.

2.3.3.5 Water Transport

Offshore supply vessels act as the circulation system in the body of offshore oil and gas 

operations, carrying everything from drilling supplies, to oil and gas personnel, to food and water 

for the personnel, to the structures and platforms themselves. The industry is represented by the 

Offshore Marine Service Association, the primary source for the pictures and descriptions below 

(OMSA 2009a; Dismukes 2010).11

Tugboats are the smallest vessels, with lengths ranging from 70 

feet to 140 feet, but are powered with very large engines. They 

are used to tow and position production platform jackets, barges, 

and MODUs that are not self-propelled.

Source: OMSA (2009a).

Mini-supply vessels, or utility boats, range in length from 96 

feet to 175 feet. They are usually used to support production 

operations on smaller, nearer-to-shore systems. They might be 

used to transport up to 36 workers, either between platforms or 

from shore to the platform and back, or cargo. Some have 

below-deck cargo space in addition to the flat cargo section in 

the rear. At times, they can serve as temporary storage space.

Source: OMSA (2009a).

 

11 This section does not include floating production, storage, and offloading vessels (FPSOs) because their primary 

purpose is the processing of oil and gas production rather than the transport of crew and materiel.
27

Crewboats, or fast supply vessels, are meant for the rapid 

transport of personnel, typically from 36 to 149 workers. They 

range in length from 110 feet to 200 feet in length and are lighter 

and quicker than utility boats. Seacor Marine recently introduced 

a catamaran with a carrying capacity of 150 workers and a top 

speed of 40 knots (Seacor Marine 2009).

Source: OMSA (2009a).

Anchor handling, towing, and supply vessels range in length 

from 80 feet to 600 feet with winches and engines (sometimes in 

excess of 10,000 horsepower; see Tidewater 2009) to raise and 

lower anchors for semisubmersible structures and other MODUs. 

See figure at left for an indication of the scale of these 

operations.

Source: OMSA (2009a).

Platform supply vessels range in length from 150 feet to 300 

feet. Designed to maximize carrying capacity, they can carry up 

to 36 offshore workers in addition drill pipe, spare parts, fuel, 

and any other item needed at an offshore production system. 

They have a range up to 200 miles and can work in all but the 

worst weather. 

Source: OMSA (2009a).

A liftboat might resemble a jack-up drilling rig—both have selfelevating legs—but a liftboat is always self-propelling, with at 

least one crane and open deck space. Liftboats carry equipment 

and support wireline, crane, pipe-laying, diving, workover, and 

coiled tubing operation. They can also serve as temporary 

housing for construction and service crews. Working water 

depths range from 1.5 feet to nearly 200 feet (Templeton & 

Associates 2009).

Source: OMSA (2009a).
28

Barges, with their large flat decks, are designed to carry the 

largest and heaviest components for offshore production systems 

and pipelines. Ranging in length from 300 feet to 800 feet, the 

largest are capable of carrying loads of 12,000 tons or more. 

Some barge designs are hybrid. The second picture of a barge 

working in the offshore oil and gas industry shows a lift-barge 

made of two barges linked by the lifting structure and winches.

Source: OMSA (2009a).

Source: OMSA (2009a).

OMSA reports that it has about 100 member companies and that vessel operators employ about 

12,000 crewmembers (OMSA 2009b). Section 3.14 summarizes the information on the 

companies that offer water transport services to the oil and gas industry in the GOM.

2.3.4 Production and Operations

2.3.4.1 Routine Operations

During the operating phase of an offshore oil and gas project, the crews need to get 

transportation to and from the structure, food to eat, and places to sleep. During their shift, crews 

will monitor production and replace and repair equipment and supplies as needed. The contract 

services sectors for this phase thus include tools and supplies (discussed in Section 3.4), 

accommodations (Section 3.12), air transportation (Section 3.13), water transportation (Section 

3.14), and catering (Section 3.15).

2.3.4.2 Workovers

Workover12

 

12 Van Dyke (1997) makes a distinction between well service and workover. The former is maintenance work such 

as replacing or repairing equipment. The latter is any operation that restores or increases production. This report 

makes no distinction.

costs are included as part of the annual operating and maintenance costs tracked by 

the Energy Information Administration (USDOE, EIA 2007). Based on Van Dyke (1997), a well 

might need workover services for a variety of reasons, such as:
29

• Paraffin buildup. As the well is produced, paraffin can deposit on the tubular 

walls and surface equipment, thus reducing or restricting production. The 

paraffin can be removed mechanically or dissolved by heat or chemical 

solvent.

• Corrosion. Exposure to hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, or oxygen in the 

fluids coming up the well can corrode the tubulars. Fixing a leaking tube 

requires pulling the tubing from the well and replacing the leaky section.

• Abrasion. If the well was completed with an artificial lift system such as 

sucker rods, abrasion damage can occur if the sucker rods rub against the 

inside of the tubing’s side wall. If the well produces sand along with the 

oil/gas/and water, the inside of the tubing sidewall and exposed casing string 

can also suffer abrasion damage.

• Equipment replacement or repair.

• Sand clean-out (also called “bailing sand”). This is usually done by circulating 

a fluid to flush the sand out. 

• Excess water or gas production. If a reservoir has water drive (i.e., water 

underlying the oil pushes the oil up through the well bore), the water level can 

reach the perforations as the oil is removed. When this happens, it might be 

economical to plug the well bore with cement at the water level and 

reperforate the well above the water level. If a reservoir has gas drive (i.e., 

downward pressure from gas overlying the oil pushes it up the well bore), the 

well is plugged and recompleted at a lower level.

In addition to drilling and completion activities, workover operations include other specialized 

equipment and activities (Van Dyke 1997). Van Dyke (1997) considers coiled tubing to have a 

number of advantages over workover rigs, such as:

• It is much quicker to install and remove than jointed tubing. Thus, the use of 

coiled tubing might result in a less expensive workover. 

• It can be used in horizontal wells where wirelines are ineffective.

• It usually has a narrow diameter, narrow enough that it can be placed in the 

well without first removing the production tubing. 

Snubbing refers to the ability to perform workover tasks while the well is still under pressure 

and producing. Usually, a well is “killed” (i.e., production is stopped by pumping fluids down 

the borehole such that the oil or gas remains in the formation) in order for 

reconditioning/workover tasks to take place. Killing a well automatically involves a cost for lost 

production while the well is being serviced, but also includes a risk of permanent damage to the 

formation. The use of coiled tubing facilitates snubbing operations (Van Dyke 1997).

Workover might be performed by permanent drilling rigs on the production structures or by 

mobile rigs described in Section 2.3.2.1. Companies that offer workover services are discussed in 

Section 3.16. 
30

2.3.4.3 Diving Operations

The oil and gas industry needs construction workers to build and maintain its workplaces. When 

the workplace happens to be the underwater structures and equipment for offshore oil and gas 

operations, there are safety concerns related to currents, visibility, waves, air supply, and 

decompression. IMPLAN sectors are associated with industries, thus the project focuses on 

commercial diving operations offered by companies rather than individuals that have completed 

the training to be commercial divers. ERG included commercial diving companies, salvage 

diving companies, and other firms (e.g., marine construction) if they offered diving as a separate 

service. In contrast, commercial divers employed by shipping and marine construction or oil and 

gas companies are considered under the industry category of the company for which they work. 

In practice, the dividing line between the groups is not always clear.

Dismukes (2010) lists the tasks that commercial divers perform:

• Perform offshore oil and gas exploration and extraction duties such as 

underwater surveys, nondestructive testing, blasting, construction, and repair 

and maintenance of drill rigs and platforms.

• Operate underwater video, sonar, recording, and related equipment for 

scientific or exploratory purposes.

• Inspect vessels, buoyage systems, pipelines, sluice gates, plant intakes and 

outfalls, and other materials through visual inspection, photography, and 

nondestructive testing.

• Perform construction duties such as welding and installing pilings for 

cofferdams or footings for piers; and maintain these and drydocks, 

breakwaters, marine ways, and bridge foundations using hand and power tools 

and pneumatic equipment.

• Operate winches, derricks, or cranes to manipulate cables and chains to raise 

sunken objects.

• Set up and detonate explosives to remove obstructions and break up or refloat 

submerged objects.

• Participate in underwater search and rescue, salvage, recovery, and cleanup 

operations.

• Check and maintain diving equipment such as helmets, masks, air tanks, 

harnesses, gauges, air compressors, diving suits, underwater cutting torches, 

and welding equipment.

Depending on the water temperature and length of the dive, the diver will either use a wetsuit or 

a drysuit. (A wetsuit allows the diver to get wet but its material, usually neoprene, provides 

thermal insulation. With a drysuit, the diver is kept warm either by the suit material or thermal 

underwear.) Air might be supplied from the surface through hoses, or the diver might wear selfcontained underwater breathing apparatus (scuba) tanks. Depending on the water depth and 

length of the dive, a diver might do surface diving (in which the diver decompresses as he or she 

surfaces) or saturation diving (in which divers live aboard pressurized vessels for the duration of 
31

the project) (Diving Heritage 2009). While the depth limit for recreational non-decompression 

dives is 130 feet, there is no regulatory limit for commercial divers. Due to medical 

considerations,13

As offshore drilling and production moves into depths beyond the capabilities of human divers, 

the support work is performed by remotely operated vehicles (ROVs). These can be towed 

behind vessels, be linked to the surface by umbilicals, or operate autonomously. Dismukes 

(2010) describes and illustrates various categories of ROVs, such as: 

however, diving to depths below 600 feet is extremely hazardous.

• Towed vehicles. Towed vehicles are usually used for search and survey tasks. 

They may carry equipment such as cameras (TV, film, or digital), laser 

imaging, various types of sonar systems (side scan, swath bathymetry sonar, 

or multibeam), sub-bottom profilers, and magnetometers.

• Small vehicles. These are used for inspection and observation in water depths 

up to 984 feet (300 meters).

• High-capability electric ROVs. These are used for inspection, observation, 

and light-weight manipulation tasks in water depths up to 20,000 feet (6,096 

meters).

• Medium vehicles. These vehicles have one or two manipulators that can 

handle payloads of 220 to 440 pounds (100 to 200 kilograms). They provide 

drilling support, construction support, pipeline inspection, and other similar 

tasks in water depths up to 3,281 feet (1,000 meters).

• Large vehicles. These ROVs operate in the deep-water regions to depths of 

8,202 feet (2,500 meters)14

• Ultra-deep vehicles. Designed to operate at depths of 13,123 feet (4,000 

meters), these vehicles tend to be used for research, search, and salvage 

missions. The design typically contains enough power for attaching a salvage 

line but not for lift capabilities.

and have lifting capabilities up to 11,025 pounds 

(5,000 kilograms). They are used to perform subsea tie-in operations and carry 

substantial tool packages.

• Bottom crawlers. Bottom crawlers are used primarily for laying and burying 

cable. The trenching and burial systems include water jets, chain trencher, 

wheel trencher, or plow. The vehicle might be operated by a diver or 

remotely.

 

13 High-pressure nervous syndrome (HPNS) begins at about 600 feet. At about 1,000 feet, divers show changes in 

brain activity and can fall into microsleep if not continually roused (Vann and Vorosmarti 2001).

14 We anticipate that continued developments in the deepwater GOM will spur concomitant improvements in depth 

capabilities of large ROVs.
32

• Autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs). These vehicles carry operations 

equipment and power sources on board but are not tethered to a mother ship or 

manned. 

Companies that offer these services in the GOM are described in Section 3.17.
33

3 C ONTR AC T S E R VIC E S INDUS TR IE S

Chapter 3 focuses on the companies that offer services (or commodities) to the offshore oil and 

gas industry operating in the GOM. The chapter is organized by oil service industry sector. The 

first part of each section lists the companies that ERG identified as offering the service or 

commodity, their ownership, and 2007 revenues and employment at the company level. The 

second part of each section concerns the locations in the GOM region owned by each of the

companies. To the extent possible, ERG identifies revenues and employment at each location 

and then summarizes the geographic distribution of locations, revenues, and employment. 

3.1 GEOPHYSICAL AND GEOLOGICAL PROSPECTING

3.1.1 Ownership Patterns and Company Size

• Table 4 lists the 79 companies15

T

that ERG identified as providing G&G 

services for the offshore GOM. The table shows each company’s corporate 

parents, headquarters locations, company ownership (public or private), and 

the 2007 revenues and employees of the corporate parent. From , we can 

glean the following information:

• There are five times as many privately held firms as public firms in the GOM 

G&G industry.

• The public firms include the anticipated giants, Schlumberger and 

Transocean, which have 2007 revenues of $23 billion and $6.4 billion from all 

operations, respectively.

• Of the 14 public firms, more than half are foreign: CGG Veritas, Fugro NV, 

GETECH Inc., Kelman Technologies, Inc., Offshore Hydrocarbon Mapping 

plc (OHM), Spectrum ASA, TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Company ASA, and 

Transocean.

• The highest revenue for a privately held firm in this industry is reported at $25 

million (Geophysical Services Inc.). The low end of the range appears to be 

tens of thousands of dollars for one- to two-person firms. Revenue 

information could not be located for 10 privately held firms.

 

15 ERG could find no definitive information that 10 of the 79 companies worked in the offshore GOM. Because it 

could not be determined that those 10 companies worked only on land, ERG retained them in the list. The 

companies are: Apex Geophysical Services, Inc., Geotrak Corporation, Kapadia & Associates International, Inc., 

Kinnickinnick Exploration, Meredith Minerals Company, Padgett Exploration, Polaris E & E Services, Inc., SAI 

Sydboten & Associates, Inc., Timesline Technology, Inc., and Xcel Seismic, Inc.
34

Table 4 

Companies Offering Geological and Geophysical Surveying in the Gulf of Mexico

Parent Company

Parent 

Headquarters 

City

Headquarters 

State

Public/ 

Private

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

CGGVeritas Paris France Public $3,250 8,123

Fugro N.V. Leidschendam Netherlands Public € 1,802.7 11,472

Geokinetics, Inc. Houston TX Public $358 3,200

GETECH Inc Leeds UK Public € 3.6 36

IHS, Inc. Englewood CO Public $688 3,800

Ion Geophysical Corporation Houston TX Public $713 1,201

Kelman Technologies Inc Calgary, Alberta Canada Public $26 190

Offshore Hydrocarbon 

Mapping plc London GB Public £17.7 114

OYO Geospace Corp Houston TX Public $138 1,169

Schlumberger Houston TX Public $23,227 80,000

Spectrum ASA (June 2008) Oslo Norway Public kr 77.6 200

Stone Energy Corporation Lafayette LA Public $753 244

TGS-NOPEC Geophysical 

Company ASA (Norway) Asker Norway Public $453 566 

Transocean Grand Cayman Cayman Islands Public $6,377 21,100

Alpha Geo Inc Houston TX Private $0.20 1

Apex Geophysical Services 

Inc Metairie LA Private $0.2 2

Austin Exploration Inc Houston TX Private 0.7 8

Baird Petrophysical 

International, Inc. Houston TX Private $0.1 1 

Bell Geospace Inc Houston TX Private $11.0 15

Bird Geophysical Houston TX Private 26 to 100

C & C Technologies Lafayette LA Private

Centerline Geophysical, Inc. Houston TX Private $0.8 15

CR Willingham & Associates Houston TX Private 1 to 25

dGB Beheer BV Enschede Netherlands Private Less than $25 26

Dune International Houston TX Private Less than $25 1 to 25

DWS International Inc. Corpus Christi TX Private $5 to $10 12

Earthfield Technology Inc Cypress TX Private $0.33 1

Ensoco Inc Houston TX Private $1 to $2.5 9

EPIC Geophysical LLC Conroe TX Private

Less than 

$0.5 1 to 25

eSeis Inc Houston TX Private $1.60 15

Explorer Group 1, The Spring TX Private $0.4 5

Fairfield Industries Inc Sugar Land TX Private $48 400

First Exchange Corp Houston TX Private $2.2 20

Geocenter Inc Houston TX Private $1.6 29

Geophysical Pursuit Inc Houston TX Private $0 to $10 1 to 50

Geophysical Service Inc Calgary, Alberta Canada Private $25.0 45

Geoscience Solutions LLC Magnolia TX Private $0.04 1

Geotrace Technologies Inc Houston TX Private $10.4 194
35

Table 4. Companies Offering Geological and Geophysical Surveying in the Gulf of Mexico

(continued). 

Parent Company

Parent 

Headquarters 

City

Headquarters 

State

Public/ 

Private

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Geotrak Corp Houston TX Private $0.6 6

Gulf Coast Velocity Data Inc Katy TX Private $0.5 5

Hunter 3D Inc. Houston TX Private $0.33 1

IGC, Integrated Geophysics 

Corp Houston TX Private Less than $25 1 to 25

Interactive Interpretation & 

Training, Inc. Houston TX Private $0.25 2

Istech Energy Resources Houston TX Private 50

JD Silvetti Group of 

Companies Lafayette LA Private

Less than 

$0.5 26 to 100

Jebco Seismic LP Houston TX Private $5 9

Kapadia & Associates 

International Inc. Houston TX Private $0.3 1

Kevin M. Smith, Inc. Houston TX Private $0.2 1

Kinnickinnick Exploration Lafayette LA Private $0.4 3

Lynx Information Systems, 

Inc. London GB Private $1 to $5 1 to 25

Meredith Minerals Co Houston TX Private

Micro Strat Inc Houston TX Private $0.6 8

NS Neidell & Associates Houston TX Private $0.88 10

PAC Geophysical Inc Houston TX Private $1.8 2

Padgett Exploration Houston TX Private $0.4 1

Paradigm Woking GB Private $10.9 950

Pellegrini Exploration The Woodlands TX Private $0.2 2

Petrophysical Solutions Inc Houston TX Private $0.3 9

Polaris E & E Services Inc The Woodlands TX Private $0.5 to $1.0 5 to 10

READ ASA Oslo Norway Private € 9.60 115

Reservoir Definition Inc Houston TX Private $0.33 5

Resolve GeoSciences Inc. Katy TX Private Less than $25 1 to 25

SAI Sydboten & Associates 

Inc Lafayette LA Private 

Seisborg Geophysical Seabrook TX Private

Seismic Exchange Inc Houston TX Private $9.21 95

Seismic Micro-Technology Inc 

USA Houston TX Private $9.0 125 

Seismic Solutions Sugar Land TX Private $0.10 1

Seitel, Inc. Houston TX Private $149 154

Swinehart Consulting The Woodlands TX Private 1

Tesla Exploration Ltd. Calgary, Alberta Canada Private

Texseis Inc Houston TX Private $0.9 9

Timeslice Technology Inc Houston TX Private $1.2 23

Trabant & Associates Houston TX Private $0.4 4

Vector Seismic Data 

Processing Inc Denver CO Private $6.4 17

Weinman Geoscience Inc Dallas TX Private $0.26 8

Willis Group Houston TX Private $4.20 286

Xcel Seismic Inc Richmond TX Private
36

Company ownership is in a state of flux. Recent mergers, acquisitions, and changes include:

• Schlumberger’s acquisition of AOA Geomarine Operations (2004) and 

Petroalliance Services Company LTD (completed 2005) added to its massive 

G&G resources in WesternGeco (AOA Geophysics 2009; Schlumberger 

2007a). Schlumberger acquired the outstanding portion of WesternGeco from 

Baker Hughes in 2006 (Schlumberger 2007b).

• Spectrum ASA resulted from a demerger of the two business arms of Global 

Geo Services in July 2008 (Spectrum ASA 2009).

• Seitel became a privately owned corporation in February 2007 (Seitel 2007).

• Transocean and GlobalSantaFe merged in November 2007. With the merger, 

Transocean also acquired GlobalSantaFe’s acquisition of Challenger Minerals 

(Transocean 2007a).

• Offshore Hydrocarbon Mapping plc acquired Rock Solid Images in 2007 

(OHM 2007).

• TGS-NOPEC acquired Parallel Data Systems, Inc. in May 2007 (TGSNOPEC 2007).

• The Willis Group of Companies acquired Seis Strat Services, Inc., in 2007 

(Seis Strat 2009).

• JD Silvetti Group of Companies owns Marine Surveys, LLC (Silvetti 2009).

• Geokinetics, Inc. acquired Geophysical Development Corp. in 1998 and Grant 

Geophysical in 2006 (Geokinetics 2007).

• Exploration Specialty merged with eSeis in 2000 (Business Wire 2000).

• geoPLUS was taken over by IHS Services and renamed IHS Energy Log 

Services in 2006 (IHS 2008).

• Input/Output changed its name to ION Geophysical Corporation in September 

2007 (ION Geophysical Corporation 2007).

With the sale of its portion of WesternGeco to Schlumberger in 2006, Baker Hughes appears to 

have exited the G&G industry as described for this project. Through INTEQ, the company offers 

logging-while-drilling and measurement-while-drilling services, as discussed in Section 3.6. 

Bois d’Arc Energy was an oil and gas production company with operations in the GOM. It is 

listed in GCOD 2008 as offering seismic services. Stone Energy Corporation, another oil and gas 

production firm, acquired Bois d’Arc in April 2008 (Stone Energy Corporation 2008). It is 

unclear whether Stone Energy offers G&G services to other firms. However, ERG decided to 

include Stone Energy in the analysis because it serves as an example of a company that provides 

G&G services on an in-house basis. Stone Energy is very active in the GOM, and it is likely that 

household income derived from G&G activities would flow from the company to households in 

the BOEMRE GOM economic area.
37

Although a great deal of consolidation has taken place in recent years, there are still a substantial 

number of small companies, which mostly focus on data processing and/or data brokering. 

Primarily the public companies appear in industry surveys such as that produced by Standard & 

Poors (S&P 2008). As a result, such industry reviews frequently omit the economic activity that 

occurs in the set of smaller, private companies, thereby omitting the role that the support services 

to offshore oil and gas industry play in local communities and economies.

3.1.2.1.2 Percentage of Work Performed Offshore and Percent of Offshore Work 

Performed in the Gulf of Mexico

ERG could identify the percentage of work performed offshore and the percentage of offshore 

work performed in the GOM in a limited number of cases by a variety of methods. Seitel Inc. is 

estimated to have about 26 percent of its business in the offshore GOM based on the ratio of the 

square mileage of its 3D seismic mileage (10,509 sq. mi. for the GOM and 40,739 sq. mi. for the 

world). Fugro Geoservices appears to work only in the offshore based on information on its 

website. Two companies were listed as working in the GOM and performing only offshore work 

in the GCOD 2008—Marine Surveys, LLC and Trabant & Associates.16

This small sample suggests that the percentage of a company’s work in the offshore GOM varies 

greatly. This implies that company-level financial data are not reliable for estimating the 

socioeconomic impacts in the GOM region. An alternative approach is to focus on G&G services 

offered by these companies from locations within the GOM region and rely on other sources for 

allocating their spending to other industries. This location approach is presented in the following 

section.

3.1.2.2 Locations

Table A-1 lists the locations where G&G services are offered on a contract basis within the 

GOM region. Information on many of the locations is sometimes identified under the original 

company’s name even though it has been acquired by another company. For this reason, Table 

A-1 lists a location name, corporate parent name, city and state for the location, and the 2007 

revenues and employees at that location (to the extent the information is available). Employee 

and revenue data were collected from D&B Million Dollar Database, RefUSA.com, 

Hoovers.com, Selectory.com, and Manta.com. 

Table 5 lists the regional employment distribution. An estimated 5,870 to 6,128 jobs and at least 

$2.94 billion in revenue is associated the G&G contract service industry in the GOM region. 

These firms are extremely concentrated in the Houston, Texas, area in Harris County. About 

two-thirds of the locations, 85 percent of the employees, and 95 percent of the revenues listed in 

Table 5 are located in the Houston area. 

 

16 Two additional companies were listed in the 2008 GCOD as working in the GOM and performing only offshore 

work. These are El-Can Exploration Inc. and Jack C. Weyand. The website listed in GCOD for El-Can Exploration, 

Inc. reaches a blank page. In 2007, the company was embroiled in a suit regarding the transfer of its assets to a new 

company called EDOG, LLC (Fryar Law Firm 2009) and which does not appear in D&B’s Million Dollar Database. 

Jack C. Weyand is an individual, a life member of the Society of Exploration Geologists who got his degree in 1949 

(SEG 2009) and is likely retired at this time. 
38

Texas claims 84 percent of the locations, 90 percent of the employees, and 99 percent of the 

identifiable revenues. The percentage of revenues might be skewed because revenues for the 

Louisiana locations could not be identified for seven of the 17 locations. Although Harris County 

accounts for 95 percent of the revenues, the G&G industry contributes economic activity to five 

parishes in Louisiana and six counties in Texas.

Table 5 

Regional Distribution of Employees and Revenue 

2007 Employees

Number of Locations Upper Lower Upper Lower 2007 Revenue

 Count Percent Count Count Percent Percent Count Percent

Texas 87 84% 5,511 5,330 90% 91% $2,902.05 99% 

Louisiana 17 16% 630 553 10% 9% $39.94 1% 

 104 100% 6,141 5,883 100% 100% $2,941.99 100% 

 

TX - Fort Bend 7 7% 276 228 4.49% 3.88% $97.60 3.32%

TX - Nuceses 2 2% 16 16 0.26% 0.27% $3.60 0.12%

TX - Harris 71 68% 5143 5013 83.75% 85.21% $2,792.87 94.93% 

TX - Montgomery 4 4% 14 11 0.23% 0.19% $1.48 0.05% 

TX - Dallas 1 1% 8 8 0.13% 0.14% $0.26 0.01%

TX-Travis 1 1% 2 2 0.03% 0.03% $0.25 0.01%

TX - Galveston 1 1% 52 52 0.85% 0.88% $5.99 0.20% 

LA - Jefferson 2 2% 2 2 0.03% 0.03% $0.20 0.20% 

LA - Lafayette 8 8% 499 422 8.13% 7.17% $33.10 1.13%

LA - Orleans 5 5% 34 34 0.55% 0.58% $0.50 0.02% 

LA - St. Mary 1 1% 30 30 0.49% 0.51% $3.84 0.13% 

LA - Ascension 1 1% 65 65 1.06% 1.10% $2.30 0.08% 

104 100% 6,141 5,883 100% 100.00% $2,941.99 100%

3.2 DRILLING CONTRACTORS

3.2.1 Ownership Patterns and Company Size

Table 6 lists the 15 companies that ERG identified as providing drilling services for the offshore 

GOM. The table shows each company’s corporate parent, headquarters location, and ownership 

(public or private), as well as the 2007 revenues and employees of the corporate parent. The 

drilling contractor companies represent approximately nearly 140,000 employees.17

From 

 

Table 6, we can glean the following information:

 

17 Revenues are not summed because the results are reported in different currencies.
39

• Fourteen out of the 15 drilling companies listed are public. Spartan Offshore 

Drilling LLC is the only remaining privately held offshore rig provider in the 

United States.

• Loews Corporation has 2007 revenues of $18,380 million, the highest among 

the drilling companies listed. Loews is one of the largest diversified holding 

companies in the United States, with five operating subsidiaries. One of 

these—Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., one of the world’s largest offshore 

drilling companies—has 2007 revenues of $2,568 million. That is, drilling 

represents only 14 percent of Loews Corporation revenues.

Table 6 

Drilling Companies in the Gulf of Mexico

Parent Company

Parent 

Headquarters 

City

Headquarters 

State

Public/ 

Private

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Atwood Oceanics, Inc. Houston TX Public $403.04 900

ENSCO International, Inc. Dallas TX Public $2,143.80 4,100

Fred Olson ASA Oslo Norway Public NOK 4,276.90 1,148

Helmerich & Payne, Inc. Tulsa OK Public $2,036.54 6,456

Hercules Offshore, Inc. Houston TX Public $766.79 3,300

Loews Corp. New York NY Public $18,380.00 21,700

Nabors Industries, Ltd. Hamilton Bermuda Public $4,940.68 23,965

Noble Corp. George Town, 

Grand Cayman

Cayman 

Islands 

Public $2,995.31 6,600

Parker Drilling Co. Houston TX Public $654.57 3,087

Pride International Inc. Houston TX Public $2,043.80 6,900

Rowan Co's, Inc. Houston TX Public $2,095.02 5,704

Saipem SpA Milan Italy Public EUR 9,530 33,373

Transocean, Inc. Houston TX Public $6,377.00 21,100

Trinidad Drilling, Ltd. Calgary AB Canada Public $629.68 200

Spartan Offshore Drilling LLC Metairie LA Private $0.70 11

Total 138,544

Source: D&B (2009). 

• Of the 14 public firms, five are foreign (Fred Olson ASA, Nabors Industries, 

Ltd., Noble Corp., Saipem SpA, and Trinidad Drilling, Ltd.). Fred Olsen ASA 

owns Dolphin Drilling Company, which had a drill ship operating in the deepwater GOM in 2008 (see Table 6). Fred Olsen ASA does not have a U.S. 

office, only a single consultant located in Houston, Texas (Fred Olsen 2009). 

This might indicate that much of the expenditures associated with drilling by 

this company (or any of the other four foreign firms) will not remain in the 

GOM region.

• While Noble Corp. is the global ultimate parent company, the domestic 

ultimate parent company is Noble Holding Corp., which is headquartered in 

Sugar Land, Texas.
40

Following are a list of some recent changes in company ownership:

• On July 23, 2007, Transocean and GlobalSantaFe announced a merger of 

equals, creating a combined entity, called Transocean, Inc., with an estimated 

enterprise value of $53 billion. Transocean, Inc., is the world’s largest 

offshore drilling contractor. GlobalSantaFe is also one of the world’s largest 

offshore oil and gas drilling contractors and the leading provider of drilling 

management services worldwide (Transocean 2007b). 

• Trinidad Drilling, Ltd., acquired Victory Rig Equipment Corp., a 

manufacturer and wholesaler of oilfield equipment based in Red Deer, 

Alberta, and announced the creation of a full service design and 

manufacturing division on September 3, 2008. The division retained the name 

Victory Rig Equipment (Trinidad 2008).

• In July 2007, Trinidad closed the acquisition of the assets of Axxis. The assets 

acquired include four land-based drilling rigs, one barge drilling rig, related 

inventory, crew boats, and spare parts. Trinidad also took over construction of 

a second barge drilling rig (Trinidad 2007).

3.2.2 Rig Counts

Table 7 lists the total number of rigs (onshore and offshore combined), the total number 

of offshore rigs, and the total number of rigs in the GOM. The information was gleaned 

from 2007 company reports. Based on these rig counts, we can glean the following 

information:

• Trinidad Drilling, Ltd., has 47 rigs in the GOM, which is the highest number 

among all of the drilling companies.

• Nabors Industries, Ltd., has the highest total number of rigs (1,344), but only 

53 rigs (3.9 percent) are located offshore. Nabors has the second highest 

number of rigs (27) in the GOM.

• Hercules Offshore has 23 rigs operating in the GOM, nearly half of its total 

number of rigs.

• Transocean, Inc., has 147 rigs in total, but all of them are offshore. Thus, it 

has the highest number of offshore rigs of all the drilling companies listed, but 

only 16 rigs are operating in the GOM. 

• Noble Corp. has the second highest number of offshore rigs (63). Like 

Transocean’s rigs, all of Noble Corp.’s rigs are offshore; 19 are operating in 

the GOM.

• Spartan Offshore Drilling’s rigs are all offshore and located in the GOM, but 

the company has the smallest number of offshore rigs (five rigs). Two of 

Spartan’s rigs are under contract at this time.

• Fred Olson ASA, Atwood Oceanics, Inc., and Saipem SpA each have only 

one rig in the GOM. 
41

3.2.3 Percentage of Work Performed Offshore and Percent of Offshore Work 

Performed in the Gulf of Mexico

Rig counts can be used as a proxy to estimate the percentage of work performed offshore and in 

the GOM. ERG used three ratios to evaluate the amount of business performed in the offshore 

GOM. In Table 8, the left-hand column is the ratio of the number of offshore rigs to the total 

number of rigs listed in Table 8. The middle column is the ratio of the number of rigs in the 

GOM to the total number of rigs. The right-hand column is the ratio of the number of rigs in the 

GOM to the number of offshore rigs. Although other measures can be used to determine these 

percentages, rig counts are readily available. By using the same measure for each company, ERG 

is able to make an accurate comparison. 

Table 7 

Rig Counts

Parent Company Name

Total Number of Rigs

(Onshore and Offshore) Total Offshore Rigs Rigs in GOM

Trinidad Drilling, Ltd. 167 47 47 

Nabors Industries, Ltd. 1,344 53 27 

Hercules Offshore, Inc. 52 35 23 

Noble Corp. 63 63 19 

Transocean, Inc. 147 147 16 

Loews Corp. 46 46 15 

Parker Drilling Co. 45 16 15 

ENSCO International, Inc. 50 50 14 

Pride International Inc. 46 46 13 

Rowan Co's, Inc. 52 22 10 

Helmerich & Payne, Inc. 224 9 7 

Spartan Offshore Drilling LLC 5 5 5 

Atwood Oceanics, Inc. 11 11 1 

Fred Olson ASA 9 9 1 

Saipem SpA 79 17 1 

Totals 2,340 576 214 
42

Table 8 

Percentage of Work Performed Offshore and Percent of Offshore Work Performed 

in the Gulf of Mexico

Company Name

Percent of Business 

Offshore

Percent of Business 

Offshore GOM

Percent of Offshore 

Business in the GOM

Spartan Offshore Drilling LLC 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Hercules Offshore, Inc. 67.31% 44.23% 65.71% 

Parker Drilling Co. 35.56% 33.33% 93.75%

Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. 100.00% 32.61% 32.61% 

Noble Corp. 100.00% 30.16% 30.16%

Pride International Inc. 100.00% 28.26% 28.26%

Trinidad Drilling, Ltd. 28.14% 28.14% 100.00%

ENSCO International, Inc. 100.00% 28.00% 28.00%

Rowan Co's, Inc. 42.31% 19.23% 45.45%

Fred Olson ASA 100.00% 11.11% 11.11% 

Transocean, Inc. 100.00% 10.88% 10.88%

Atwood Oceanics, Inc. 100.00% 9.09% 9.09% 

Helmerich & Payne, Inc. 4.02% 3.13% 77.78%

Nabors Industries, Ltd. 3.94% 2.01% 50.94% 

Saipem America, Inc. 21.52% 1.27% 5.88%

From Table 8, we can make the following observations:

• Over half of all companies perform all of their business offshore (Atwood 

Oceanics, Inc., Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., ENSCO International, Inc., 

Fred Olson ASA, Noble Corp, Pride International Inc., Spartan Offshore 

Drilling LLC, and Transocean, Inc.).

• Nabors Industries, Ltd., has the smallest percentage of business offshore (3.9 

percent).

• Saipem has been awarded an $860 million, five-year contract for the deepwater semisubmersible Scarabeo 9. The contract, signed with Eni, is for 

drilling operations mainly in the GOM, and will start by the end of 2009. The 

new rig is currently under construction in China and is expected to be 

completed in the fourth quarter of 2009 (Rigzone 2007). Because Saipem will 

only have one rig in the offshore GOM, it has the smallest percentage (1.3 

percent) of business in the offshore GOM region.

• Spartan Offshore Drilling LLC performs 100 percent of its business in the 

offshore GOM region.

• Trinidad Drilling, Ltd. performs all of its offshore business in the GOM, while 

Atwood Oceanics, Inc. performs only 9 percent of its offshore business in the 

GOM. 
43

3.2.4 Locations

The parent companies listed in Table 6 have numerous offices within the GOM region. Table A2 breaks down total 2007 revenues and 2007 employees for each of these offices. Many of these 

locations are subsidiaries and are thus recognized by their original names. For this reason, Table 

A-2 lists the original company’s name along with the corporate parent name, the city and state 

for the location, and the 2007 revenues and employees at that location (to the extent the 

information is available). Employee and revenue data were collected from the D&B Million 

Dollar Database and Manta.com. 

The D&B Million Dollar Database lists the county or parish where each company is located. The 

counties and parishes were used to determine whether the locations are within the area of 

interest. Next, the locations were narrowed down based on the services they provide. Only 

locations that provide drilling services were included in Table A-2. 

At least 11,089 jobs and at least $6,332 million in revenue are associated with the drilling 

industry in the GOM region. Texas claims 79 percent of the locations, 75 percent of the 

employees, and 93 percent of the identifiable revenues. More specifically, based on the following 

observations, we can see that the firms are extremely concentrated in the Houston area:

• Houston represents 57 percent of locations and 72 percent of Texas locations.

• Houston generated $5,500 million in 2007 revenues, which is 87 percent of 

total identifiable revenues and 93 percent of identifiable revenues generated in 

Texas. 

• With an estimated 6,967 employees, Houston claims 63 percent of total 

employees and 84 percent of Texas employees.

One company—Spartan Offshore Drilling LLC—appears to use contract labor for actual drilling 

operations. The company owns five rigs but reports only eight employees. The eight employees 

likely represent the executives down to the rig manager level, with contract employees filling the 

rest of the positions.18

Table 9

 

lists the regional employment distribution. All of the Houston locations are located in 

Harris County, according to the D&B Million Dollar Database. Locations in Harris County also 

include one location in Crosby and one location in Spring. Although there is a high concentration 

in this county, the drilling industry contributes economic activity to seven additional counties in 

Texas and eight parishes in Louisiana.

Table 10 summarizes the data contained in Table 9, providing an overview of the total number of 

locations that perform drilling services in the GOM for each parent company. This table also 

sums together the number of employees at these locations. It lists “>120” employees for Atwood 

Oceanics’ GOM locations because ERG does not have employee data for one location in 

 

18 ERG investigated, but did not find, a data source documenting the number of contract workers for offshore 

drilling operations.
44

Houston. Thus the percentage of employees in GOM locations underestimates the true value. In 

particular:

• Transocean, Inc., has the most locations in the GOM that perform drilling 

services (12); Fred Olson ASA, Saipem SpA, and Spartan Offshore Drilling 

LLC have one location each.

• Pride International Inc. has only three locations in the GOM that perform 

drilling services, yet it has the most employees working in the GOM. The 

3,250 employees that work at these locations make up 47 percent of total 

employees at the company. 

• Saipem SpA has the smallest percentage of its employees in its GOM 

locations (0.6 percent). 

Table 9 

Regional Distribution of Employees and Revenue—Drilling Services

Number of Locations 2007 Employees 2007 Revenue (Millions)

Region Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent

Texas 53 79% 8,261 74.5% $5,904.50 93.2%

Louisiana 14 21% 2,828 25.5% $427.64 6.8% 

67 100% 11,089 100% $6,332.14 100% 

LA – Caddo 1 1%

TX – Dallas 3 4% 300 2.7% $17.80 0.3%

TX - Fort Bend 4 6% 602 5.4% $334.13 5.3%

TX – Harris 40 60% 7,022 63.3% $5,504.05 86.9% 

TX – Hidalgo 1 1% 60 0.5% $8.64 0.1% 

LA – Iberia 3 4% 38 0.3% $5.47 0.1% 

TX – Jefferson 1 1% 30 0.3% $4.32 0.1%

LA – Jefferson 1 1% 8 0.1% $0.46 0.0%

TX - Jim Wells 2 3% 216 1.9% $31.10 0.5%

LA – Lafayette 3 4% 175 1.6% $230.10 3.6% 

LA – Lafourche 1 1% 22 0.2% $3.17 0.1% 

TX – Liberty 1 1% 25 0.2% $3.60 0.1% 

TX – Nueces 1 1% 6 0.1% $0.86 0.0%

LA – Orleans 1 1% 3 0.0% $0.43 0.0%

LA - Saint Mary 1 1% 30 0.3% $4.32 0.1%

LA – Terrebonne 3 4% 2,552 23.0% $183.69 2.9% 

Totals 67 100% 11,089 100% $6,332.14 100% 
45

Table 10 

Location Totals—Drilling Services

Parent Company Name

Number of Office 

Locations in Coastal 

GOM

Number of Employees 

in GOM Locations

Percent of Employees 

in GOM Locations

Atwood Oceanics, Inc. 3 >120 13.3% 

Loews Corp. 3 335 1.5% 

ENSCO International, Inc. 5 475 11.6% 

Fred Olson ASA 1 

Helmerich & Payne, Inc. 3 221 3.4% 

Hercules Offshore, Inc. 4 652 19.8% 

Nabors Industries, Ltd. 11 962 4.0%

Noble Corp. 6 607 9.2% 

Parker Drilling Co. 3 143 4.6% 

Pride International Inc. 3 3,250 47.1% 

Rowan Co's, Inc. 8 1,339 23.5% 

Saipem SpA 1 192 0.6% 

Spartan Offshore Drilling LLC 1 8 72.7%

Transocean, Inc. 12 2,749 13.0% 

Trinidad Drilling, Ltd. 2 35 17.5% 

3.2.5 Companies That Would Like to Be Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico

ERG found offices in the GOM region for five companies that do not have drilling operations in 

the GOM at this time. These are Ocean Rig ASA (taken over by Dry Ships Inc., a subsidiary of 

Primelead Ltd.) (Rigzone 2008), Premium Drilling, Inc. (Premium Drilling 2009), Scorpion 

Offshore, Ltd. (Scorpion Offshore 2009), Songa Offshore Group (Songa Offshore Group 2009), 

and Stena Drilling (Stena Drilling 2009). We believe that these are marketing offices for 

companies that would like to be drilling in the GOM but are not currently doing so. ERG did not 

include these companies in the rest of the analysis because, at this time, money spent in the 

GOM would not flow to them. 
46

3.3 DRILLING FLUID AND SPECIALTY CHEMICAL SUPPLIERS

A recurring problem faced in this study is deciding who is in the scope of the analysis. For 

drilling fluid and specialty chemical suppliers, the question becomes how far back to trace all the 

constituents in the drilling fluid. ERG attempted to focus on manufacturers and dealers that 

specify they work in the GOM OCS region.19

3.3.1 Ownership Patterns and Company Size

Table 11 lists the 14 companies that ERG identified as providing drilling fluids to the offshore 

GOM. The table shows each company’s corporate parent, headquarters location, ownership 

(public or private), and the 2007 revenues and employees of the corporate parent. From Table 11, 

we can glean the following information:

• Half of the companies listed are public and half are private.

• The public firms include the anticipated giants—Baker Hughes, Inc., and 

Halliburton Co.—which have 2007 revenues of $10.4 billion and $15.3 billion 

from all operations, respectively. In addition, a joint venture between Chevron 

and ConocoPhillips pooled their worldwide petrochemical operations. Drilling 

fluids form only a small part of the $13.0 billion reported for this venture, 

called Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. LLC (Chevron Phillips 2009). 

• Spirit Drilling and Completion Fluids has the highest reported revenue for a 

privately held company in Table 11. The lowest revenue for a privately held 

firm in this industry is reported at $320,000 for a six-person firm, LCS 

International. 

• All of the firms listed are domestic. 

• Halliburton Co. has 186,144 employees, the highest number among all 

companies listed, but these reflect the company’s wide range of services 

within the oil services contract industry. Setac Chemicals has only three 

employees, the fewest among all companies listed.

 

19 Cabot Corporation’s Specialty Fluids Business produces and markets cesium formate as a drilling and completion 

fluid (see Dismukes 2008). While Cabot has an office in Houston, the manufacturing locations appear to be in 

Billerica, Massachusetts, and Albuquerque, New Mexico. The 2008 annual report and 10-K form mentions that a 

large portion of their fluids have been used in the North Sea as well as Argentina, Hungary, Malaysia, Brunei, and 

the northern Caspian Sea. The Gulf of Mexico is not mentioned, so ERG did not include it in the discussion (Cabot 

2008). 
47

Table 11 

Drilling Fluid Companies in the Gulf of Mexico

Parent Company

Parent 

Headquarters 

City

Parent 

Headquarters 

State

Public/ 

Private

2007 Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Baker Hughes, Inc. Houston TX Public $10,428.20 35,877 

Chevron Phillips 

Chemical Co. LLC

The Woodlands TX Public $12,986.00 5,150 

Halliburton Co. Houston TX Public $15,264.00 186,144

Newpark Resources, 

Inc.

The Woodlands TX Public $612.76 1,987

Patterson-UTI 

Energy, Inc.

Houston TX Public $2,114.19 8,100 

Smith International, 

Inc.

Houston TX Public $8,764.33 19,865

TETRA 

Technologies Inc.

The Woodlands TX Public $982.48 2,895 

LCS International Lafayette LA Private $0.32 6

Liquid Casing, Inc. Houston TX Private $20.11 37

Lost Circulation 

Specialists

Casper WY Private $3.06 4

Setac Chemicals Lafayette LA Private $0.65 3 

Spirit Drilling and 

Completion Fluids, 

Ltd.

Houston TX Private >$39.23 >160 

Sun Drilling 

Products Corp.

Belle Chasse LA Private $5.30 100–250 

Turbo-Chem 

International, Inc.

Scott LA Private $18.44 39

Source: D&B (2009).

Following are a list of some recent changes in company ownership:

• On June 3, 2008, Smith International announced an agreement to acquire W-H 

Energy Services (Smith International 2008).

• On September 28, 2007, Spirit Drilling and Completion Fluids announced that 

it would merge with Dynamic Drilling Fluids of Denver, Colorado, thus 

expanding Spirit’s operations into the Rocky Mountain region. The company 

was renamed Spirit Drilling and Completion Fluids, Ltd. (Spirit Drilling and 

Completion Fluids 2007).

3.3.2 Locations

Table A-3 breaks down total 2007 revenues and 2007 employees among each of the 89 office 

locations ERG could identify as providing drilling fluids and/or specialty drilling chemicals in 

the offshore GOM. Table 12 summarizes the information in Table A-3. At least 1,303 jobs and at 

least $846.32 million in revenue are associated with the drilling fluids industry in the GOM 

region. Since many locations do not provide employee and revenue data, these figures 

underestimate the true values. Texas claims 52 percent of the locations, 45 percent of the 
48

employees, and 46 percent of the identifiable revenues. Even though there are 41 locations in 

Louisiana as opposed to 46 in Texas, Louisiana claims a greater percentage of employees (55 

percent) and identifiable revenues (54 percent). Mississippi only has one location. Employment 

and revenue data for this location were unavailable. Similarly, Alabama has only one drilling

fluids location. This location has three employees and reported 2007 revenues of $64,000. 

Locations, employees, and revenues are dispersed among 30 counties and parishes in the GOM. 

No single county or parish claims a majority of locations, employees, or revenues. The region 

with the highest percentage of locations is Harris County with 18 percent, followed by Lafayette 

Parish with 12.4 percent. All of the Houston locations are located in Harris County. Locations in 

Harris County also include one location in Cypress, Texas. Even though Harris County has the 

highest number of locations, it only claims about 17 percent of employees and 21 percent of 

2007 revenues. Lafayette Parish, on the other hand, claims 21 percent of employees and 29 

percent of 2007 revenues. It has the highest number of employees and the highest reported 2007 

revenues of all counties and parishes. Employee data were unavailable for four counties in Texas 

and one location in Mississippi. Similarly, revenue data were unavailable for four counties in 

Texas and one county in Mississippi. Thus, the percentages may be slightly skewed. 

Table 13 provides an overview of the total number of locations that provide drilling fluids in the 

GOM for each parent company. This table also sums together the number of employees at these 

locations. Many of the companies have a “greater than” (>) symbol next to the number of 

employees because information could not be obtained for one or more GOM locations. As a 

result, most of the companies actually have a higher percentage of employees at their GOM 

locations.

From Table 13, we observe that:

• Baker Hughes, Inc. has the greatest number of GOM locations (32). 

• Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. LLC, LCS International, and Setac Chemicals 

only have one GOM location each.

• Baker Hughes, Inc. has more than 373 employees at its GOM locations, which 

is the greatest number among all companies.

• The companies with the fewest employees at their GOM locations are LCS 

International, which has six employees, and Setac Chemicals, which has three 

employees.

• Lost Circulation Specialists has two locations. There is one employee at its 

location in Magnolia, Texas. However, employee information for its other 

GOM location in Lafayette, Louisiana, was unavailable. 

• All of the employees at LCS International, Liquid Casing, and Setac 

Chemicals work in the GOM. 

• The companies with the smallest percentage of employees working at GOM 

locations include Halliburton Co. (0.05 percent), Smith International Inc. 

(0.68 percent), and Chevron Phillips Co. LLC (0.78 percent).
49

Table 12 

Regional Distribution of Employees and Revenue—Drilling Fluids

Number of Locations 2007 Employees 2007 Revenue

Region Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent

Texas 46 51.7% 587 45.0% $387.97 45.8% 

Louisiana 41 46.1% 713 54.7% $457.71 54.1%

Mississippi 1 1.1% 

Alabama 1 1.1% 3 0.2% $0.64 0.1%

Totals 89 100.0% 1,303 100.0% $846.32 100.0%

TX - Aransas 3 3.4%

LA - Bossier 1 1.1% 50 3.8% $40.69 4.8%

TX - Brazoria 2 2.2%

LA - Caddo 1 1.1% 13 1.0% $10.58 1.3%

LA - Calcasieu 2 2.2% 66 5.1% $21.90 2.6%

TX - Calhoun 1 1.1%

LA - Cameron 3 3.4% 17 1.3% $1.21 0.1%

TX - Dallas 2 2.2% 5 0.4% $4.07 0.5%

TX - Galveston 6 6.7% 16 1.2% $2.66 0.3%

TX - Harris 16 18.0% 217 16.7% $178.74 21.1%

TX - Hidalgo 2 2.2% 20 1.5% $8.98 1.1%

LA - Iberia 1 1.1% 25 1.9% $20.34 2.4%

MS - Jackson 1 1.1%

LA - Jefferson 2 2.2% 20 1.5% $2.30 0.3%

TX - Jim Wells 1 1.1% 45 3.5% $36.62 4.3%

TX - Kleberg 1 1.1% 23 1.8% $65.36 7.7%

LA - Lafayette 11 12.4% 274 21.0% $248.08 29.3%

LA - Lafourche 3 3.4% 45 3.5% $9.53 1.1%

TX - Liberty 1 1.1% 7 0.5% $1.48 0.2%

TX - Matagorda 1 1.1% 0.0%

AL - Mobile 1 1.1% 3 0.2% $0.64 0.1%

TX - Montgomery 4 4.5% 194 14.9% $11.20 1.3%

TX - Nueces 4 4.5% 47 3.6% $74.56 8.8%

LA - Orleans 3 3.4% 102 7.8% $83.01 9.8%

LA - Plaquemines 4 4.5% 51 3.9% $3.16 0.4%

TX - San Patricio 1 1.1% 10 0.8% $3.23 0.4%

LA - St. Mary 3 3.4% 33 2.5% $9.86 1.2%

LA - Terrebonne 3 3.4% 3 0.2% $1.30 0.2%

LA - Vermilion 4 4.5% 14 1.1% $5.75 0.7%

TX - Victoria 1 1.1% 3 0.2% $1.07 0.1%

Totals 89 100.0% 1,303 100.0% $846.32 100.0%
50

Table 13 

Location Totals—Drilling Fluids

Parent Company

Number of 

GOM Locations

Number of Employees 

at GOM Locations

Percentage of 

Employees at GOM 

Locations

Halliburton Co. 5 86 0.05% 

Smith International Inc. 8 >136 0.68% 

Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. LLC 1 34 0.78% 

Baker Hughes, Inc. 32 >373 1.04% 

Patterson-UTI Energy 8 >100 1.23% 

Newpark Resources, Inc. 17 >122 6.14% 

TETRA Technologies Inc. 4 254 8.77%

Lost Circulation Specialists 2 >1 25.00% 

Turbo-Chem International, Inc. 3 >10 25.64% 

Spirit Drilling Fluids 3 >94 58.75% 

LCS International 1 6 100.00% 

Liquid Casing 2 37 100.00% 

Setac Chemicals 1 3 100.00%

Sun Drilling Products Corp. 2 42 16.8%–42.0% 

3.4 DRILLING SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT

3.4.1 Ownership Patterns and Company Size

Table 14 lists the 30 companies that ERG identified as providing drilling tools and supplies to 

the offshore GOM. The table shows each company’s corporate parent, headquarters location, 

ownership (public or private), and the 2007 revenues and employees of the corporate parent. 

Baker Hughes, Inc., and Halliburton Co. appear in this sector, which also includes small, private 

companies that have developed certain niches. Nearly 47 percent of the companies are privately 

owned, orders of magnitude smaller than the well-known company giants. About 38 percent of 

the public companies are foreign-owned (Aker ASA, Filtrona PLC, Nabors Industries Ltd., TSC 

Offshore Group Limited, Tesco Corp., and Tenaris SA).

Table 14 also indicates that:

• The highest revenue for a privately held firm in this industry is reported at 

$286 million (Arcapita, Inc.). The lowest revenue for a privately held firm in 

this industry is reported at $130,000 (Rattler Tools, Inc.) for a two-person 

firm. 

• Halliburton Co. has 186,144 employees, the highest number among all 

companies listed, while TSC Offshore Group Ltd. has the lowest number 

among all public firms with 430 employees. 

• Parman Capital Group LLC has the highest number of employees among all 

private companies (2,631), while Rattler Tools, Inc. has the least (two). 
51

Table 14 

Drilling Supplies and Equipment Companies in the Gulf of Mexico

Parent Company

Parent 

Headquarters City

Parent 

Headquarters 

State

Public/ 

Private

2007 Revenues 

(Millions) 2007 Employees

Aker ASA Oslo Norway Public NOK 61,702.00 27,096 

Baker Hughes 

Incorporated

Houston TX Public $10,428.20 35,877

BJ Services Co. Houston TX Public $5,426.26 16,700

Filtrona PLC Buckinghamshire England Public EUR 265.8 4,666

Halliburton Co. Houston TX Public $15,264.00 186,144

Helmerich & Payne, 

Inc.

Tulsa OK Public $2,036.54 6,456

Nabors Industries, Ltd. Hamilton Bermuda Public $4,940.68 23,965 

National Oilwell 

Varco, Inc.

Houston TX Public $9,789.00 31,198 

Oil States 

International, Inc.

Houston TX Public $2,088.24 6,551

Rowan Co's, Inc. Houston TX Public $2,095.02 5,704 

RPC, Inc. Atlanta GA Public $690.23 2,370 

Smith International 

Inc.

Houston TX Public $8,764.33 19,865 

Superior Energy 

Services, Inc

New Orleans LA Public $1,572.47 4,500

Tenaris SA Luxembourg Luxembourg Public $10.04 23,372 

Tesco Corp. Calgary, AB Canada Public $462.38 1,864 

TSC Offshore Group 

Limited

Hong Kong Hong Kong Public $35.73 430 

Arcapita, Inc. Atlanta GA Private $285.70 253

Bico Drilling Tools 

Inc.

Houston TX Private $3.70 38

Fluid Systems, Inc Harvey LA Private $9.59 38 

Frank's Casing Crew 

& Rental Tools, Inc.

Lafayette LA Private $87.60 900 

Knight Oil Tools, Inc. Lafayette LA Private $29.00 300

L E Simmons & 

Associates, Inc.

Houston TX Private $17.50

Logan Oil Tools, Inc. Houston TX Private $50.00 300 

Oceanex Services Int'l, 

Inc.

Houston TX Private $16.03 15 

Parman Capital Group 

LLC

Houston TX Private $161.20 2,631

Rattler Tools, Inc. Broussard LA Private $0.13 2 

Ray Oil Tool 

Company, Inc.

Broussard LA Private

Reamco Inc. Broussard LA Private $5.96 48

T&T Investment Corp. Houma LA Private $6.00 143

Vanoil Completions 

LLC

Broussard LA Private $1.20 15

Totals 401,441 
52

The drilling tools and supply sector thus shows an enormous range in size. While giants such as 

Halliburton dominate the oil services contract industry, there is still room for individual 

innovation. Rattler Tools, for example, designed a magnetic tool that cleans metallic debris from 

the boreholes while drilling (Rattler Tools 2009).

• Recent changes in company ownership include: 

• On October 1, 2007, Arcapita Inc. announced that its affiliates had signed a 

purchase agreement to acquire Varel Holdings, Inc., from KRG Capital 

Partners for approximately $369 million. Varel is the world’s fastest-growing 

manufacturer of drill bits for the oil and gas and mining and industrial 

industries (Arcapita 2007).

• On May 21, 2008, BJ Services Company acquired 97.6 percent of the issued 

and outstanding common shares of Innicor Subsurface Technologies, Inc. 

Innicor is headquartered in Calgary, Alberta, and is a designer, manufacturer, 

and provider of tools and equipment utilized in the completion and production 

phases of oil and gas well development (Innicor 2008).

• On May 28, 2008, Helmerich & Payne announced the acquisition of a small 

private firm, TerraVici Drilling Solutions. At the time, the company was 

developing a patented rotary steerable system to enhance horizontal and 

directional drilling (Helmerich & Payne 2008b).

• National Oilwell Varco has been active in many mergers and acquisitions in 

the past few years. Recent changes include the following:

o On November 19, 2008, National Oilwell Varco and Schlumberger 

announced that they had entered into a definitive agreement to create a 

joint venture that combines their expertise in advanced wired drill pipe 

technology (NOV 2008a).

o On April 8, 2009, National Oilwell Varco announced that it had 

acquired ASEP Group Holding BV and Anson Limited. ASEP, based 

in the Netherlands, develops and manufactures well service equipment, 

including wireline units, cranes, coiled tubing equipment, pressure 

control products, and automation products (NOV 2009). Anson, based 

in the U.K., manufactures flowline equipment, manifolds, valves, 

swivel joints, hammer lug unions, and wellheads, which will 

complement NOV’s Mission pump and fluid expendables products 

(NOV 2009). Although these acquisitions may not directly affect 

operations in the offshore GOM, they are indicative of the global 

nature of the large public companies and the offshore industry.

o On April 21, 2008, National Oilwell Varco acquired Grant Prideco, 

Inc., which offers drill stem technology development; drill pipe 

manufacturing, sales, and service; drill bit and specialty tools, 

manufacturing, sales and service; and high-performance engineered 

connections and premium tubular products and services (NOV 2008b). 
53

o On July 31, 2007, National Oilwell Varco acquired a 76 percent stake 

in Sara Services and Engineers Private Limited, a company based in 

India, for $26 million. Sara Services fabricates, manufactures, and 

distributes oilfield equipment primarily in India, the Middle East, and 

the Far East, but also supplies oil field equipment makers in the United 

States (NOV 2007a).

o On April 19, 2007, National Oilwell Varco acquired the assets and 

business of Gammaloy Holdings, L.P., and Marlex Energy Services 

Company. Gammaloy and Marlex rent and lease non-magnetic drill 

collars and other downhole tools used within the bottom-hole 

assembly, and provide manufacturing and support services for various 

downhole tools requiring high-precision machining. Gammaloy 

currently operates in the United States and Marlex currently operates 

in Canada (NOV 2007b).

o On January 9, 2007, National Oilwell Varco completed its acquisition 

of NQL Energy Services. NQL provides downhole tools, technology, 

and services used primarily in drilling applications in the oil and gas 

and utility industries on a worldwide basis (NOV 2007c).

• On June 3, 2008, Smith International announced an agreement to acquire W-H 

Energy Services, providing entry into the directional drilling services industry 

(Smith International 2008).

• Tenaris SA announced plans to acquire Hydril Company on February 12, 

2007. Hydril is a leading North American manufacturer of premium 

connections and pressure control products for oil and gas drilling and 

production (Tenaris 2007).

• TSC Offshore Limited acquired Patriot Mechanical Handling, Patriot Winch, 

and Ansell Jones in 2007 (TSC 2008). 

3.4.2 Locations

Table A-4 lists the data for the 179 locations that ERG could identify as providing drilling 

supplies and equipment to offshore oil and gas operations. Table 15 is a summary by region. At 

least 10,660 jobs and at least $2,242.85 million in revenue are associated with the drilling tools 

and supplies industry in the GOM region. Since some locations do not provide employee and 

revenue data, these figures slightly underestimate the true values. 

Table 15 summarizes the information in Table A-4 by state and county/parish. By state, Texas 

claims 55 percent of the locations, 75 percent of the employees, and 78 percent of the identifiable 

revenues. Louisiana claims 44 percent of the locations, 25 percent of the employees, and 22 

percent of the identifiable revenues. Florida only has one location. It claims 0.1 percent of the 

employees and identifiable revenues. Revenue data were unavailable for one county in Texas 

(Waller). Thus, the percentages may be minimally skewed. 
54

Table 15 

Regional Distribution of Employees and Revenue—Drilling Tools and Supplies

 Number of Locations 2007 Employees 2007 Revenue

 Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent

Florida 1 1% 15 0.1% $3.18 0.1% 

Louisiana 79 44% 2,657 24.9% $501.16 22.3%

Texas 99 55% 7,988 74.9% $1,738.51 77.5% 

 179 100% 10,660 100% $2,242.85 100% 

 

TX - Bossier 1 0.6% 8 0.1% $1.30 0.1% 

TX - Brazoria 4 2.2% 37 0.3% $10.89 0.5% 

LA - Caddo 2 1.1% 21 0.2% $3.08 0.1% 

LA - Calcasieu 4 2.2% 107 1.0% $25.32 1.1% 

LA - Cameron 1 0.6% 2 0.0% $0.87 0.0% 

TX - Cameron 1 0.6% 2 0.0% $0.87 0.0% 

TX - Dallas 1 0.6% 200 1.9% $37.35 1.7%

TX - Fort Bend 2 1.1% 145 1.4% $30.72 1.4% 

TX - Harris 60 33.5% 6,441 60.4% $1,436.18 64.0% 

TX - Hidalgo 4 2.2% 28 0.3% $13.67 0.6% 

FL - Hillsborough 1 0.6% 15 0.1% $3.18 0.1% 

LA - Iberia 10 5.6% 149 1.4% $41.10 1.8% 

LA - Jefferson 4 2.2% 48 0.5% $13.13 0.6% 

TX - Jefferson 2 1.1% 14 0.1% $1.70 0.1% 

TX - Jim Wells 5 2.8% 98 0.9% $35.65 1.6% 

LA - Lafayette 24 13.4% 1,117 10.5% $132.95 5.9% 

LA - Lafourche 1 0.6% 14 0.1% $6.07 0.3% 

TX - Montgomery 4 2.2% 579 5.4% $101.31 4.5% 

TX - Nueces 8 4.5% 171 1.6% $33.69 1.5% 

LA - Orleans 4 2.2% 200 1.9% $49.03 2.2% 

LA - Plaquemines 4 2.2% 300 2.8% $61.64 2.7% 

LA - Saint Landry 1 0.6% 65 0.6% $5.40 0.2% 

LA - Saint Martin 2 1.1% 87 0.8% $42.48 1.9% 

LA - Saint Mary 3 1.7% 98 0.9% $15.27 0.7% 

LA - Saint Tammany 2 1.1% 45 0.4% $19.52 0.9% 

LA - Terrebonne 15 8.4% 386 3.6% $79.27 3.5% 

LA - Vermilion 1 0.6% 10 0.1% $1.70 0.1% 

TX - Victoria 5 2.8% 100 0.9% $32.54 1.5% 

TX - Waller 1 0.6% 150 1.4% 0.0% 

LA - Webster 1 0.6% 8 0.1% $4.33 0.2% 

TX - Wharton 1 0.6% 15 0.1% $2.64 0.1% 

 179 100% 10,660 100% $2,242.85 100% 

The locations are distributed among 31 counties and parishes in the GOM. Because there are so 

many counties and parishes, no single county or parish claims a majority of locations, 

employees, or revenues. Harris County claims the highest percentage of locations with 34 

percent, followed by Lafayette Parish with 13 percent. Harris County claims about 60 percent of 
55

employees and 64 percent of 2007 revenues. It has the highest number of employees and the 

highest reported 2007 revenues of all counties and parishes. Lafayette Parish claims nearly 11 

percent of employees and 6 percent of 2007 revenues. 

Table 16 summarizes number of locations and employees by parent company. Many of the 

companies have a “greater than” (>) symbol next to the number of employees because 

information could not be obtained for one or more GOM locations. As a result, most of the 

companies actually have a higher percentage of employees at their GOM locations. In general:

Table 16 

Location Totals—Drilling Tools and Supplies

Parent Company

Number of GOM 

Locations

Number of Employees at 

GOM Locations

Percentage of 

Employees at GOM 

Locations

Aker ASA 3 775 2.9%

Arcapita, Inc. 1 2 0.8%

Baker Hughes Incorporated 5 71 0.2%

Bico Drilling Tools Inc. 2 33 86.8% 

BJ Services Co. 4 560 3.4% 

Filtrona PLC 1 65 1.4%

Fluid Systems, Inc. 2 30 78.9%

Frank's Casing Crew & Rental 

Tools, Inc.

6 >674 74.9%

Halliburton Co. 8 182 0.1% 

Helmerich & Payne, Inc. 1 15 0.2% 

Knight Oil Tools, Inc. 4 144 48.0%

L E Simmons & Associates, Inc. 7 >435

Logan Oil Tools, Inc. 1 300 100.0% 

Nabors Industries, Ltd. 1 100 0.4% 

National Oilwell Varco, Inc. 58 3365 10.8% 

Oceanex Services Int'l, Inc. 1 15 100.0% 

Oil States International, Inc. 9 327 5.0%

Parman Capital Group LLC 1 200 7.6%

Rattler Tools, Inc. 1 2 100.0%

Ray Oil Tool Company, Inc. 1 

Reamco Inc. 1 48 100.0% 

Rowan Co's, Inc. 1 100 1.8% 

RPC, Inc. 5 178 7.5%

Smith International Inc. 27 1416 7.1%

Superior Energy Services, Inc. 16 642 14.3%

T&T Investment Corp. 2 29 20.3% 

Tenaris SA 2 483 2.1% 

Tesco Corp. 3 391 21.0% 

TSC Offshore Group Limited 4 >63 14.7% 

Vanoil Completions LLC 1 15 100.0%

• National Oilwell Varco has the greatest number of GOM locations (58) and 

employees (3,365). 
56

• 40 percent of the companies have only one location in the offshore GOM. 

• All of the employees at Rattler Tools, Inc., Oceanex Services Int’l, Inc., 

Vanoil Completions LLC, Reamco Inc., and Logan Oil Tools, Inc., work in 

the GOM. 

• The companies with less than 1 percent of employees working at GOM 

locations include Halliburton Co. (0.1 percent), Baker Hughes, Inc. (0.2 

percent), Helmerich & Payne (0.2 percent), Nabors Industries Ltd. (0.4 

percent), and Arcapita, Inc. (0.8 percent).

3.5 MUD LOGGING

3.5.1 Ownership Patterns and Company Size

Table 17 lists the 10 companies that ERG identified as providing mud logging services to the 

offshore GOM. The table shows that there is one large public company (Weatherford 

International, with $7.8 billion in revenues and 38,000 employees)20

Table 17 

Mud Logging Companies in the Gulf of Mexico

and a number of much 

smaller privately held firms. The largest of the private firms—The Mudlogging Company USA, 

L.P.—has less than $20 million in revenue and fewer than 150 employees. All firms are 

domestic.

Parent Company

Parent 

Headquarters 

City

Headquarters 

State Public/Private

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Weatherford International, Ltd. Houston TX Public $7,832.06 38,000

Continental Laboratories, Inc. Houston TX Private >$9.00 >50

Diversified Well Logging, Inc. Reserve LA Private $7.80 130

Geo-Lab, Inc. Hockley TX Private $2.70 50

Petroleum Center, Inc. Thibodaux LA Private $1.30 30

Petro-Log, Inc. Lafayette LA Private $2.40 61

PRECISION Well Logging, Inc. Houston TX Private $6.66 47

Pro-Log, Inc. New Iberia LA Private $3.10 34

Stratagraph, Inc. Scott LA Private $8.90 115

The Mudlogging Company 

USA, L.P.

Houston TX Private $16.74 145

Totals $7,890.66 38,662 

Source: D&B (2009).

Two firms have been active in acquiring other firms in the industry. Thus, the industry has been 

undergoing some consolidation. On August 18, 2008, Weatherford acquired International 

 

20 Schlumberger offers an operations support center with Web-based surveillance for drilling optimization, but the 

services are variations on MWD rather than mud logging (Schlumberger 2009).
57

Logging, Inc. (Weatherford 2008). Since its inception in 1986, The Mudlogging Company USA, 

L.P. (TMC) has grown by acquiring other mud logging companies, including: 

• PLS (Petroleum Logging Service) (Texas)

• Downhole Data, Inc. (Texas)

• Log and Sample Service (Louisiana)

• Formation Technologists, Inc. (Texas)

• Ragsdale Well Logging Service (Texas)

• Falcon Well Logging (Texas)

• Advanced Mudlogging (Texas)

• Drilling Technology, Inc. (Texas)

• Central Oilfield Industries, Inc. (Louisiana)

• Pelican Logging, Inc. (Louisiana)

• Texas Welco (Texas)

Most of TMS’s work is in the GOM, but they have performed services in other countries (The 

Mudlogging Company 2009).

3.5.2 Locations

Table A-5 lists total 2007 revenues and 2007 employees by location within the GOM region for 

the companies listed in Table 17. The counties were used to determine whether the locations are 

within the area of interest. At least 652 jobs and at least $69.2 million in revenue are associated 

with the mud logging industry in the GOM region. Texas claims 64 percent of the locations, 

nearly 50 percent of the employees, and 69 percent of the identifiable revenues. Louisiana claims 

36 percent of the locations, nearly 51 percent of the employees, and 31 percent of the identifiable 

revenues. 

Table 18 lists the regional employment distribution. Locations, employees, and revenues are 

dispersed among eight counties/parishes in the GOM. Harris County has the highest percentage 

of locations (43 percent) followed by Lafayette Parish with 14 percent. All of the other 

counties/parishes have one location and claim 7 percent of the locations. 

With the highest percentage of locations, it is no surprise that Harris County claims the highest 

percentage of employees (46 percent) and the highest percentage of 2007 revenues (66 percent). 

With the second highest percentage of locations, Lafayette Parish also claims the second highest 

percentage of employees (25 percent) and the second highest percentage of 2007 revenues (14 

percent). Despite having only one location, St. John the Baptist Parish in Louisiana follows close 

behind, with 19 percent of employees and 11 percent of 2007 revenues.

Table 19 summarizes the data in Table 18, providing an overview of the total number of 

locations that provide mud logging services in the GOM for each parent company. This table 

also sums together the number of employees at these locations. Consistent with the relative sizes 

of company revenue (Table 17) and GOM location revenue for that company (), Weatherford 

International, Ltd., has the smallest percentage of its employees working at its GOM location 

(0.03 percent). In the mud logging sector, most of the companies are small and privately owned, 

with all employees working in the GOM region. 
58

Table 18 

Regional Distribution of Employees and Revenue—Mud Logging Services

 Number of Locations 2007 Employees 2007 Revenue

Region Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent

Texas 9 64% 323 49.5% $47.54 68.7% 

Louisiana 5 36% 329 50.5% $21.66 31.3%

14 100% 652 100% $69.20 100%

TX - Fort Bend 1 7% 16 2.5% $1.84 2.7%

TX – Harris 6 43% 302 46.3% $45.43 65.7%

LA – Iberia 1 7% 19 2.9% $3.10 4.5%

TX - Jim Wells 1 7%

LA - Lafayette 2 14% 160 24.5% $9.46 13.7%

LA - Lafourche 1 7% 25 3.8% $1.30 1.9%

TX - Nueces 1 7% 5 0.8% $0.27 0.4%

LA - St. John the Baptist 1 7% 125 19.2% $7.80 11.3%

Totals 14 100% 652 100% $69.20 100%

Table 19 

Location Totals—Mud Logging Services

Company Name

2007 

Employees

Number of Office 

Locations in Coastal 

GOM

Number of 

Employees in GOM 

Locations

Percentage of 

Employees at GOM 

Locations

Weatherford 

International, Ltd.

38,000 2 10 0.03%

Continental 

Laboratories, Inc.

>50 2 >50 

Pro-Log, Inc. 34 1 19 55.88%

Petroleum Center Inc. 30 1 25 83.33%

Diversified Well 

Logging, Inc.

130 2 130 100.00% 

Geo-Lab, Inc. 50 1 50 100.00% 

Petro-Log, Inc. 61 2 61 100.00% 

PRECISION Well 

Logging, Inc.

47 1 47 100.00% 

Stratagraph, Inc. 115 1 115 100.00%

The Mudlogging 

Company USA, L.P.

145 1 145 100.00%

3.6 MEASUREMENT WHILE DRILLING SERVICES

3.6.1 Ownership Patterns and Company Size

Table 20 lists the 16 companies that ERG identified as providing MWD services to the offshore 

GOM. There is an even split between public and private ownership in the number of companies, 

but the public companies are one to two orders of magnitude larger than the private companies. 

Three public firms are foreign-owned (Nabors Industries, Ltd., Schlumberger Ltd./NV, and 
59

Weatherford International, Ltd.), and one private firm is foreign-owned (Pajak Engineering Ltd.). 

The highest revenue for a privately held firm in this industry is reported at $38 million (Pajak 

Engineering Ltd.). Slider LLC reported $1 million in 2007 revenues at its Houston, Texas, 

location. However, because Slider has another location in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, for which 

revenue data are unavailable, we know that 2007 revenues are greater than $1 million. Revenue 

and employee information was unavailable for two companies (Measurement While Drilling 

Services and MS Energy Services). 

Table 20 

MWD Companies in the Gulf of Mexico

Parent Company

Parent 

Headquarters 

City

Parent Headquarters 

State

Public/

Private

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Allis Chalmers Energy Inc. Houston TX Public $570.97 3,050

Baker Hughes Houston TX Public $10,428.20 35,877

Halliburton Co. Houston TX Public $15,264.00 186,144

Nabors Industries Ltd. Hamilton Bermuda Public $4,940.68 23,965 

RPC, Inc. Atlanta GA Public $690.23 2,370 

Schlumberger Ltd./NV Willemstad Netherlands 

Antilles

Public $23,276.54 80,000

Smith International Houston TX Public $8,764.33 19865 

Weatherford International Ltd Hamilton Bermuda Public $7,832.06 38,000 

Gyrodata Inc. Houston TX Private $18.10 300 

Measurement While Drilling 

(MWD) Services

Youngsville LA Private

MS Energy Services Conroe TX Private

Pajak Engineering Ltd. Calgary, 

Alberta

Canada Private $38.00 22

Prime Directional Systems 

LLC

Broussard LA Private $1.70 28

Scientific Drilling 

International 

Houston TX Private $36.00 500

Slider LLC Houston TX Private >$1.00 >4

Wellbore Navigation, Inc. Tustin CA Private $2.10 25 

Totals >$71,863.91 >390,150 

Halliburton Co. has 186,144 employees, the highest number among all companies listed, while 

RPC, Inc., has the lowest number among all public firms with 2,370. Scientific Drilling 

International has the highest number of employees among all private companies (500). Slider 

LLC only has four employees at its Houston location. Employee data are unavailable for the 

company’s other location in Canada; therefore, we know only that there are more than four 

employees at the company. 

Following is a list of parent companies that have experienced new developments relating to 

MWD services. 
60

• Allis-Chalmers Energy, Inc., announced that it had recently acquired two 

companies, Coker Directional, Inc., and Diggar Tools, LLC; this has 

expanded its directional drilling capabilities (Allis-Chalmers 2007).

• In 2008, Baker Hughes INTEQ launched its new aXcelerate High-Speed 

Telemetry service, offering high-speed mud-pulse and wired-pipe data 

transmission for logging while drilling (LWD) and MWD operations. This 

service is already being used in the GOM (Baker Hughes 2008a). In 2007, 

Baker Hughes INTEQ entered into a service agreement with IntelliServ Inc. (a 

Grant Prideco company) for the joint operation and marketing of services 

around the IntelliServ Network to deliver drilling, LWD, and MWD data 

(Baker Hughes 2007a).

• Halliburton Co. and TOTAL signed a project development agreement to 

jointly develop an ultra-high-temperature MWD system capable of operating 

in temperatures of up to 450°F (Halliburton 2008a).

• In 2009, Schlumberger released a new telemetry platform that helps MWD 

and LWD services run faster and further (Schlumberger 2009). In 2008, 

Schlumberger announced that it had acquired the business of Engineering 

Limited, a supplier of unmanned MWD systems (Schlumberger 2008a).

• Smith International merged with W-H Energy Services, Inc., in 2008 (Smith 

International 2008).

3.6.2 Locations

Table A-6 lists the individual locations from which MWD services are offered, while Table 21

summarizes the information by state and county/parish. At least 2,150 jobs and at least $674.82 

million in revenue are associated with the MWD industry in the GOM region. Since many 

locations do not provide employee and revenue data, these figures underestimate the true values. 

Texas claims 63 percent of the locations, 51 percent of the employees, and 74 percent of the 

identifiable revenues. Louisiana claims 37 percent of the locations, 49 percent of the employees, 

and 26 percent of the identifiable revenues. Employee and revenue data were unavailable for one 

parish in Louisiana (St. Tammany). 

MWD services are offered in eight counties and parishes in the GOM. Harris County claims the 

highest percentage of locations with 50 percent, followed by Lafayette Parish with nearly 22 

percent. Harris County claims about 47 percent of employees and nearly 73 percent of 2007 

revenues. It has the highest number of employees and the highest reported 2007 revenues of all 

counties and parishes. Lafayette Parish claims nearly 38 percent of employees and nearly 14 

percent of 2007 revenues. 
61

Table 21 

Regional Distribution of Employees and Revenue—MWD Services

 Number of Locations 2007 Employees 2007 Revenue

Region Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent

Louisiana 17 37% 1,047 48.70% $175.53 26.01% 

Texas 29 63% 1,103 51.30% $499.29 73.99%

Totals 46 100% 2,150 100% $674.82 100%

TX - Dallas 1 2.17%

TX - Harris 23 50.00% 1016 47.26% $490.46 72.68%

LA - Lafayette 10 21.74% 807 37.53% $91.35 13.54%

TX - Montgomery 3 6.52% 15 0.70% $1.50 0.22%

TX - Nueces 2 4.35% 72 3.35% $7.33 1.09%

LA - Orleans 4 8.70% 118 5.49% $70.13 10.39%

LA - St. Tammany 1 2.17% 0.00% 0.00%

LA - Terrebonne 2 4.35% 122 5.67% $14.05 2.08%

Totals 46 100.00% 2,150 100.00% $674.82 100.00%

Table 22 summarizes the number of locations and employees by company offering offshore 

MWD services in the GOM. For giants in the contract oil services industry, MWD services 

involved only a small percentage (1 to 2 percent) of the companies’ employees. There is room in 

the sector, however, for much smaller companies whose sole focus is MWD services (e.g., Prime 

Directional Systems and Slider). 

Table 22 

Location Totals—MWD Services

Parent Company

Number of GOM 

Locations

Number of 

Employees at 

GOM Locations

Percentage of 

Employees at GOM 

Locations

Weatherford International Ltd. 8 430 1.13% 

Baker Hughes 7 637 1.78%

Smith International 6 405 2.04%

RPC, Inc. 5 219 9.24%

Scientific Drilling International 3 115 23.00%

Prime Directional Systems LLC 2 28 100.00%

Gyrodata, Inc. 2 150 50.00% 

Nabors Industries Ltd. 2 14 0.06%

Halliburton Co. 2 2 0.00%

Slider LLC 1 4 100.00%

Wellbore Navigation, Inc. 1 5 20.00%

Pajak Engineering Ltd. 1 1 4.55%

Allis Chalmers Energy Inc. 1 15 0.49% 

Schlumberger Ltd./NV 1 100 0.13%

Measurement While Drilling (MWD) Services 1

MS Energy Services 1
62

3.7 CEMENTING SERVICES

3.7.1 Ownership Patterns and Company Size

The ability to fill the space between the casing and formation for several thousand feet without 

voids or weak spots involves high-pressure pumping and specialized expertise. ERG identified 

four companies that specialized in cementing wells (Table 23). Two firms are public and two are 

private; all are domestic. As with MWD services, the public companies are at least an order of 

magnitude larger than the private companies. BJ Services is the “800-pound gorilla” in this 

sector, with a total of $5.4 billion in 2007 revenues and 18,000 employees. Because revenue and 

employee information was unavailable for Liner Tools LC, the total 2007 revenues are greater 

than $7,001.43 million, and there are more than 22,550 employees in total. 

Table 23 

Cementing Companies in the Gulf of Mexico

Parent Company

Parent 

Headquarters 

City

Parent 

Headquarters 

State Public/Private

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

BJ Services Houston TX Public $5,426.26 18,000

Superior Energy 

Services, Inc.

Houston TX Public $1,572.47 4,500

Hub City Industries, Inc. Lafayette LA Private $2.70 50 

Liner Tools LC Pearland TX Private

Totals >$7,001.43 >22,550 

On December 12, 2007, Superior Energy Services, Inc., announced that it had completed its 

acquisition of Warrior Energy Services (Superior Energy Services 2007). Cementing is one of 

the many services that Warrior Energy Services provides. Although Warrior Energy Services is 

described as offering services to the GOM offshore, it is located in Columbus, Mississippi, 

which is outside the region examined for impacts.

3.7.2 Locations

BJ Services has 18 offices located within the GOM region, while the other three companies 

(Superior Energy Services, Inc., Hub City Industries, Inc., and Liner Tools LC) each have one 

office located within the GOM region. 

Table A-7 breaks down total 2007 revenues and 2007 employees among each of these individual 

office locations. One of these locations, CSI Technologies, is a subsidiary of Superior Energy 

Services and is listed by its original name. At least 1,018 jobs and at least $114.09 million in 

revenue are associated with the cementing industry in the GOM region. Because ERG could not 

find employee and revenue data for Liner Tools LC, these figures underestimate the true values 

by a small degree. 

Table 24 lists the regional employment distribution. Texas claims 43 percent of the locations, 38 

percent of the employees, and 39 percent of the identifiable revenues. Louisiana claims 57 

percent of the locations, 62 percent of the employees, and 61 percent of the identifiable revenues. 
63

Employee and revenue data were unavailable for Calhoun County and Harris County in Texas 

and St. Mary Parish in Louisiana. 

Locations, employees, and revenues are dispersed among 15 counties and parishes in the GOM. 

Lafayette Parish and Terrebonne Parish in Louisiana have the highest number of locations 

(three), followed by Brazoria County and Jefferson County in Texas, which have two locations 

each. The remaining counties and parishes each have one location. Lafayette and Terrebonne 

Parishes have about 200 employees each, for nearly two-fifths of employees and 2007 revenues. 

Unlike other service sectors examined, the cementing services sector features employees and 

revenues widely distributed throughout coastal Louisiana and Texas.

Table 24 

Regional Distribution of Employees and Revenue—Cementing Services

Number of Locations 2007 Employees 2007 Revenue

Region Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent

Louisiana 12 57% 630 61.89% $69.43 60.86%

Texas 9 43% 388 38.11% $44.66 39.14%

Totals 21 100% 1,018 100% $114.09 100% 

LA – Acadia 1 4.76% 103 10.12% $11.86 10.40% 

TX – Brazoria 2 9.52% 100 9.82% $11.51 10.09% 

TX – Calhoun 1 4.76%

LA – Cameron 1 4.76% 100 9.82% $11.51 10.09%

TX – Galveston 1 4.76% 100 9.82% $11.51 10.09% 

TX – Harris 1 4.76% 

TX – Jefferson 2 9.52% 100 9.82% $11.51 10.09% 

LA – Lafayette 3 14.29% 200 19.65% $19.93 17.47% 

LA – Lafourche 1 4.76% 5 0.49% $0.58 0.51%

TX – Liberty 1 4.76% 30 2.95% $3.45 3.02%

LA – Orleans 1 4.76% 8 0.79% $0.92 0.81% 

LA – Plaquemines 1 4.76% 2 0.20% $0.23 0.20% 

LA - St. Mary 1 4.76% 

LA – Terrebonne 3 14.29% 212 20.83% $24.40 21.39% 

TX – Victoria 1 4.76% 58 5.70% $6.68 5.86%

Totals 21 100.00% 1,018 100.00% $114.09 100.00%

3.8 FORMATION EVALUATION

3.8.1 Ownership Patterns and Company Size

Table 25 lists the 18 companies that ERG identified as providing formation evaluation services 

to the offshore GOM. The table shows each company’s corporate parent, headquarters location, 

ownership (public or private), and the 2007 revenues and employees of the corporate parent. 

About one-third of the companies are privately held, with the remaining two-thirds being public 

companies. Five of the public and two of the private companies are foreign. Expro International 

Group PLC transitioned from public to private ownership in mid-July 2008, when oil prices were 

hitting peaks of $130 per billion barrels and the credit collapse had not yet occurred (USDOE, 
64

EIA 2009b). A consortium of Candover Partners Limited, Goldman Sachs Capital Partners, and 

AlpInvest Partners N.V. created Umbrellastream Limited for the acquisition (Candover 2008). 

However, since we are looking at revenues and employee data from 2007, when Expro was still a 

public company, Expro is listed as the parent company.

Table 25 

Formation Evaluation Companies in the Gulf of Mexico

Parent Company

Parent 

Headquarters 

City

Parent 

Headquarters 

State Public/Private

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

AMCOL 

International 

Corporation

Hoffman 

Estates

IL Public $744.33 2,017

Baker Hughes, Inc. Houston TX Public $10,428.20 35,877

Complete Production 

Services

Houston TX Public $1,655.24 7,062

Core Laboratories 

NV

Amsterdam The 

Netherlands

Public $670.54 4,900

Expro International 

Group PLC 

Reading UK Public EUR 609.7 4,500

John Wood Group 

PLC

Aberdeen Scotland Public $4,432.70 21,613

RPC, Inc. Atlanta GA Public $690.23 2,370

Schlumberger NV Willemstad Netherlands 

Antilles

Public $23,276.54 80,000

Superior Energy 

Services, Inc.

New Orleans LA Public $1,572.47 4,500

TETRA 

Technologies, Inc.

The 

Woodlands

Texas Public $982.48 2,895

Weatherford 

International, Ltd.

Hamilton Bermuda Public $7,832.06 38,000

Gray Energy 

Services LLC

Levalland TX Private $2.20 40

Pacific Process 

Systems, Inc.

Bakersfield CA Private $18.10 300

Reservoir Data 

Systems, Inc.

Sugar Land TX Private $0.26 4

Stric-Lan Co's Corp. Duson LA Private $10.61 85

The Geoservices 

Group 

ROISSY CDX 

CEDEX

France Private $416.00 5,100

T&P Well Testers of 

Lafayette, Inc.

Broussard LA Private $0.84 17

Welltec A/S Alleroed Denmark Private 550

Total 209,830

As in the other service sectors, there is an orders-of-magnitude range seen for company revenue 

and employees. Reservoir Data Systems Inc. is the smallest ($260 thousand and four employees), 

while Schlumberger NV is the largest ($23 billion and 80,000 employees). 

On October 2, 2008, the Geoservices Group, a leader in oilfield services worldwide announced 

that it had acquired Production Wireline and Cased Hole Services LLC (PWL) (Geoservices 
65

2008). PWL is headquartered in Broussard, Louisiana and performs slickline and related services 

in the GOM and the Gulf Coast region. The Times Picayune speculated that Geoservices 

acquired PWL in order to break into the U.S. market (Quillen 2008).

On December 12, 2007, Superior Energy Services announced that it had completed the 

acquisition of Warrior Energy Services (Superior Energy Services 2007). Warrior Energy 

Services is a natural gas and oil well services company that provides wireline and well 

intervention services to exploration and production companies. Its wireline services focus on 

cased-hole wireline (“electric line”) operations, including logging services, perforating, 

mechanical services, pipe recovery, and eventually plugging and abandoning the well (Superior 

Energy Services 2006). 

Schlumberger continued to grow in this sector by acquisition. To support its modeling 

capabilities, Schlumberger acquired IES Integrated Exploration Systems in 2008 and V.I.P.S. in 

2007 (Schlumberger 2008b, 2007c) and the data management company InnerLogix in 2007 

(Schlumberger 2007d).

3.8.2 Locations

Table A-8 lists the employees and revenues by location, while Table 26 summarizes the data by 

state and county/parish. At least 3,808 jobs and at least $544.75 million in revenue are associated 

with the formation evaluation industry in the GOM region. There may be considerable 

uncertainty due to the fact that one-third of the locations reported only one or none of the 

parameters, but these values serve as a lower bound estimate for this service sector. 

Texas claims 53 percent of the locations, 54 percent of the employees, and 63 percent of the 

identifiable revenues. Louisiana claims 47 percent of the locations, 46 percent of the employees, 

and 37 percent of the identifiable revenues. 

Locations offering formation evaluation services are distributed among 22 counties/parishes in 

the GOM region. No county or parish claims a majority of locations. Harris County and 

Lafayette Parish have the highest number of locations. Harris County claims 22 percent of the 

locations, and Lafayette Parish claims 21 percent. Seven counties and parishes claim only one 

location each. Harris County claims a quarter of total 2007 employees, and Lafayette Parish 

claims about 18 percent of total 2007 employees. Terrebonne Parish in Louisiana and Victoria 

County in Texas also claim high percentages of employees, with 17 percent and 16 percent, 

respectively.

Harris County generated the highest revenues in the industry sector, claiming 45 percent of total 

revenues. Terrebonne Parish claims about 11 percent fewer locations than Lafayette Parish but 

claims nearly 14 percent of total revenues. Lafayette Parish claims about 13 percent of total 

revenues. Employee and revenue data were unavailable for Chambers County and Wharton 

County in Texas and Iberia Parish and Jefferson Parish in Louisiana. Thus, using the revenue 

distribution shown in Table 26 will underestimate the percentage of revenue flowing to these 

counties—but, at this time, no additional information has been located.
66

Table 26 

Regional Distribution of Employees and Revenue—Formation Evaluation

 Number of Locations 2007 Employees 2007 Revenue

Region Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent

Louisiana 55 47% 1,762 46.27% $202.87 37.24% 

Texas 62 53% 2,046 53.73% $341.88 62.76%

Totals 117 100% 3,808 100% $544.75 100%

TX - Brazoria 6 5.13% 130 3.41% $16.79 3.08%

LA - Caddo 4 3.42% 13 0.34% $10.58 1.94%

LA - Calcasieu 1 0.85% 9 0.24% $1.04 0.19%

LA - Cameron 1 0.85% 73 1.92% $8.40 1.54%

TX - Chambers 1 0.85%

TX – Dallas 3 2.56% 13 0.34% $1.50 0.28%

TX - Fort Bend 2 1.71% 4 0.11% $0.26 0.05%

TX - Harris 26 22.22% 953 25.03% $244.38 44.86%

TX - Hidalgo 3 2.56% 97 2.55% $7.80 1.43%

LA - Iberia 1 0.85%

LA - Jefferson 2 1.71%

TX - Jim Wells 6 5.13% 116 3.05% $14.22 2.61%

LA - Lafayette 25 21.37% 682 17.91% $68.45 12.57%

LA - Lafourche 2 1.71% 88 2.31% $10.13 1.86%

TX - Nueces 7 5.98% 128 3.36% $13.70 2.51%

LA - Orleans 5 4.27% 226 5.93% $28.33 5.20%

LA - Plaquemines 1 0.85% 15 0.39% $0.69 0.13%

LA - Terrebonne 12 10.26% 644 16.91% $73.81 13.55%

TX - Victoria 5 4.27% 595 15.63% $41.23 7.57%

TX - Waller 1 0.85% 10 0.26% $2.00 0.37%

LA - Webster 1 0.85% 12 0.32% $1.44 0.26%

TX - Wharton 2 1.71%

Totals 117 100.00% 3,808 100.00% $544.75 100.00%

Table 27 summarizes the location data by company. The John Wood Group has the largest 

number of locations (16), but most of them do not report revenues or employees. Thus, there is 

an incongruously low total number of employees for this company. For the most part, the 

companies divide into two groups—the large companies for which formation evaluation is one of 

many services offered (and which thus have only a small percent of their employees in this sector 

in the GOM) and smaller companies that specialize in the service.
67

Table 27 

Location Totals—Formation Evaluation

Parent Company

Number of GOM 

Locations

Number of 

Employees at GOM 

Locations

Percentage of Employees 

at GOM Locations

John Wood Group PLC 16 25 0.12% 

Baker Hughes, Inc. 13 341 0.95% 

Core Laboratories NV 10 601 12.27% 

TETRA Technologies, Inc. 10 322 11.12% 

Superior Energy Services, Inc. 10 72 1.60% 

Weatherford International, Ltd. 10 170 0.45% 

Schlumberger NV 9 683 0.85%

Expro International Group PLC 8 209 4.64% 

Complete Production Services 8 748 10.59% 

RPC, Inc. 8 224 9.45% 

AMCOL International Corporation 3 224 11.11% 

The Geoservices Group 3 41 0.80% 

Gray Energy Services LLC 2 36 90.00%

Stric-Lan Co's Corp. 2 63 74.12% 

Welltec A/S 2 19 3.45% 

Reservoir Data Systems, LLC 1 4 100.00% 

T&P Well Testers of Lafayette, Inc. 1 17 100.00% 

Pacific Process Systems, Inc. 1 9 3.00% 

Totals 117 3,808 

3.9 WELL COMPLETION

3.9.1 Ownership Patterns and Company Size

Table 28 lists the 13 companies that ERG identified as providing completion services to the 

offshore GOM. For this service sector, about two-thirds of the companies are public. All of the 

public companies are domestic. The firms with the highest 2007 revenues are Baker Hughes 

Incorporated, National Oilwell Varco, and Smith International, Inc. These firms generated $10.4 

billion, $9.8 billion, and $8.8 billion, respectively. 

Two of the private firms are foreign-owned (Pajak Engineering, Ltd., and Red Spider 

Technology AS). The private firm with the highest revenue is Chet Morrison Contractors, Inc., 

with reported 2007 revenues of $45.5 million. Baker Hughes Inc. has 35,877 employees working 

in all service sectors, the highest number among all companies listed, while Spartan Offshore 

Drilling LLC has the lowest with only 11 employees. Revenue and employee information was 

unavailable for Combined Technical Services, and revenue information was unavailable for Red 

Spider Technology AS. The total 2007 revenues are greater than $38,523.51 million, and there 

are more than 121,573 employees in total. 
68

Following is a list of recent parent company news relating to the completion services industry:

• On June 30, 2008, Baker Oil Tools announced that it has installed more than 

two million feet of inflow control completion systems to achieve successful 

production rates in horizontal wells in more than 20 oil and gas fields around 

the world (Baker Hughes 2008b). In 2007, Baker Oil Tools announced that 

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation had recently completed an intelligent well in 

8,100 feet of water in the eastern GOM using Baker Oil Tools’ InForceTM 

Intelligent Completion System (Baker Hughes 2007b).

• On July 1, 2008, Halliburton Co. acquired the remaining 49 percent interest in 

Well Dynamics which provides intelligent well completion technology 

(Halliburton 2008b).

• In April 2008, Chet Morrison Contractors, Inc., purchased all the assets of 

Premium Well Services, LLC, which performs well completion services along 

with a variety of other services in the GOM (Chet Morrison 2008). 

Table 28 

Completion Companies in the Gulf of Mexico

Parent Company

Parent 

Headquarters 

City

Parent 

Headquarters 

State

Public/

Private

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Baker Hughes Incorporated Houston TX Public $10,428.20 35,877

BJ Services Co. Houston TX Public $5,426.26 18,000

Boots & Coots International 

Well Control, Inc.

Houston TX Public $105.30 650

Key Energy Services Houston TX Public $1,662.01 8,398

National Oilwell Varco Inc. Houston TX Public $9,789.00 31,198

RPC, Inc. Atlanta GA Public $690.23 2,370

Smith International Inc. Houston TX Public $8,764.33 19,865

Superior Energy Services, 

Inc.

New Orleans LA Public $1,572.47 4,500

Chet Morrison Contractors, 

Inc.

Houma LA Private $45.50 600

Combined Technical Services Harvey LA Private $1.50 32

Pajak Engineering Ltd. Calgary, 

Alberta

Canada Private $38.00 22

Red Spider Technology AS Aberdeen UK Private 50

Spartan Offshore Drilling 

LLC

Metairie LA Private $0.71 11

Totals >$38,523.51 121,573
69

3.9.2 Locations

Table A-9 lists the locations that offer completion services, while Table 29 summarizes the data 

by region. At least 2,450 jobs and at least $821.74 million in revenue are associated with the 

completion industry in the GOM region.

Texas claims 54 percent of the locations, 86 percent of the employees, and 88 percent of the 

identifiable revenues. Louisiana claims 46 percent of the locations, 14 percent of the employees, 

and 12 percent of the identifiable revenues. Employee and revenue data were unavailable for 

Dallas County, Hardin County, and Wharton County in Texas, and revenue data were 

unavailable for Webster Parish in Louisiana. Thus, the percentages may be skewed.

The locations, employees, and revenues are dispersed among 16 counties and parishes in the 

GOM region. Harris County has the highest number of locations (10), followed by Lafayette 

Parish in Louisiana, which has six locations. Harris County claims the highest percentage of 

employees (75 percent) and the highest percentage of 2007 revenues (84 percent). 

Table 29 

Regional Distribution of Employees and Revenue—Well Completion Services

Number of Locations 2007 Employees 2007 Revenue

Region Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent

Louisiana 19 46% 345 14.08% $99.24 12.08%

Texas 22 54% 2,105 85.92% $722.50 87.92% 

Totals 41 100% 2,450 100% $821.74 100% 

 

LA - Lake Charles 1 2.44% 11 0.45% $1.27 0.15% 

TX - Dallas 1 2.44% 

TX - Hardin 2 4.88% 

TX - Harris 10 24.39% 1,838 75.02% $691.19 84.11% 

LA - Iberia 2 4.88% 36 1.47% $4.51 0.55% 

LA - Jefferson 4 9.76% 67 2.73% $5.13 0.62% 

TX - Jim Wells 1 2.44% 20 0.82% $2.88 0.35% 

LA - Lafayette 6 14.63% 183 7.47% $65.48 7.97% 

TX - Liberty 2 4.88% 90 3.67% $10.36 1.26% 

TX - Nueces 4 9.76% 75 3.06% $8.63 1.05% 

LA - Orleans 1 2.44% 18 0.73% $14.65 1.78% 

LA - Terrebonne 3 7.32% 20 0.82% $7.10 0.86% 

LA - Vermilion 1 2.44% 5 0.20% $1.10 0.13% 

TX - Victoria 1 2.44% 82 3.35% $9.44 1.15% 

LA - Webster 1 2.44% 5 0.20% 

TX - Wharton 1 2.44% 

Totals 41 100.00% 2,450 100.00% $821.74 100.00% 

Table 30 summarizes the location, revenue, and employee data by company. The large 

companies that offer a variety of contract oil services have less than 1 percent of employees 

offering completion services in the GOM. These include Baker Hughes Incorporated (0.16 

percent), RPC Inc. (0.21 percent), BJ Services Co. (0.69 percent), and Superior Energy Services, 
70

Inc. (0.73 percent). Smith International, Inc., has the greatest number of GOM locations (14) and 

the greatest identifiable number of employees working in the GOM locations (1,930 employees). 

All of the employees at Spartan Offshore Drilling LLC and Combined Technical Services work 

in the GOM region. 

Table 30 

Location Totals—Well Completion Services

Parent Company

Number of GOM 

Locations

Number of 

Employees at GOM 

Locations

Percentage of 

Employees at GOM 

Locations

Spartan Offshore Drilling LLC 2 11 100.00%

Combined Technical Services 1 32 100.00%

Smith International Inc. 14 1,930 9.72%

Pajak Engineering Ltd. 1 1 4.55%

Key Energy Services 5 257 3.06%

Superior Energy Services, Inc. 4 33 0.73%

BJ Services Co. 2 125 0.69%

RPC, Inc. 3 5 0.21%

Baker Hughes Incorporated 3 56 0.16%

Chet Morrison Contractors, Inc. 2

National Oilwell Varco Inc. 2

Boots & Coots International Well 

Control, Inc.

1

Red Spider Technology AS 1

Totals 41 2,450 

3.10 FISHING

3.10.1 Ownership Patterns and Company Size

Table 31 lists the four companies that ERG identified as specializing in fishing operations. All of 

the companies listed are private, domestic, and relatively small. The largest firm is Logan Oil 

Tools, Inc., which reported at least $51.13 million in 2007 revenues and more than 309 

employees.21

 

21 Total revenue and employee information was unavailable for Logan Oil Tools, Inc. as a company. However, the 

information was available for all Gulf of Mexico locations. The sum of the location revenues and employees are 

$51.13 million and 309, respectively. Because the company has more locations in other regions, we know total 

revenue is greater than $51.13 million, and there are more than 309 employees. 
71

Table 31 

Companies in the GOM That Offer Fishing Services

Parent Company

Parent 

Headquarters 

City

Parent 

Headquarters 

State Public/Private

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Combined Technical Services Harvey LA Private $1.50 32 

Dishman & Bennett Specialty 

Co, Inc.

Houma LA Private $1.90 20 

Knight Oil Tools, Inc. Lafayette LA Private $29.00 300

Logan Oil Tools, Inc. Houston TX Private >$51.13 >309

Totals >$82.03 >629

3.10.2 Locations

Table A-10 lists the 11 locations in the GOM that specialize in offering fishing services. Logan 

Oil Tools, Inc. has the greatest number of GOM locations (four). This information is summarized 

by region and county/parish in Table 32 and by company in Table 33. An estimated 402 jobs and 

at least $60.94 million in revenue are associated with the fishing industry in the GOM region. 

Louisiana claims nearly 64 percent of the locations, while Texas claims 36 percent. Even though 

Louisiana claims the majority of the locations, Texas claims the majority of employees (84 

percent) and revenues (92 percent). Louisiana claims 16 percent of the employees and 8 percent 

of the identifiable revenues. 

The 11 locations are spread among six counties and parishes. Lafayette Parish has the highest 

number of locations (three). Harris County, Jim Wells County, and Terrebonne Parish all claim 

two locations. Harris County claims the highest percentage of employees (82 percent) and the 

highest percentage of 2007 revenues (91 percent). 

For two companies, all employees work in the GOM region. About 13.7 percent of employees at 

Knight Oil Tools, Inc., work at the company’s GOM locations. An unknown proportion of 

employees at Logan Oil Tools work in the GOM. 
72

Table 32 

Regional Distribution of Employees and Revenue—Fishing Services

 Number of Locations 2007 Employees 2007 Revenue

Region Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent

Louisiana 7 63.6% 66 16.4% $5.02 8.2% 

Texas 4 36.4% 336 83.6% $55.92 91.8%

Totals 11 100.0% 402 100.0% $60.94 100.0%

TX - Harris 2 18.2% 330 82.1% $55.28 90.7%

LA - Jefferson 1 9.1% 32 8.0% $1.50 2.5%

TX - Jim Wells 2 18.2% 6 1.5% $0.64 1.1%

LA - Lafayette 3 27.3% 18 4.5% $2.58 4.2%

LA - Terrebonne 2 18.2% 11 2.7% $0.43 0.7%

LA - Webster 1 9.1% 5 1.2% $0.51 0.8%

Totals 11 100.0% 402 100.0% $60.94 100.0%

Table 33 

Location Totals—Fishing Services

Parent Company

Number of GOM 

Locations

Number of 

Employees at 

GOM Locations

Percentage of 

Employees at 

GOM Locations

Dishman & Bennett Specialty Co, Inc. 3 20 100.0%

Combined Technical Services 1 32 100.0%

Knight Oil Tools, Inc. 3 41 13.7%

Logan Oil Tools, Inc. 4 309

Totals 11 402

3.11 WELLHEAD EQUIPMENT

3.11.1 Ownership Patterns and Company Size

Table 34 lists the 16 companies that ERG identified as providing wellhead equipment services22

 

22 That is, the tools and supplies sector discussed in Section 3.4 encompasses the tubulars and mud pumps used in 

drilling wells up to the blowout protectors. Companies providing generalized supplies (e.g., valves, gaskets) that can 

be used within multiple components are also contained in the tools and supplies section.

to the offshore GOM. The table shows each company’s corporate parents, headquarters 

locations, and ownership (public or private), as well as the 2007 revenues and employees of the 

corporate parent. Corporate ownership is 56 percent public and 44 percent private, with the 

public companies being substantially larger in revenues. General Electric Co. appears on the list 

because of its 2007 acquisition of Vetco Gray and 2008 acquisition of Hydril (GE 2007, 2008). 

Because oil production is only one part of GE’s energy segment and energy is only one of many 

segments within GE, the company is an order of magnitude larger in revenues ($173 billion) than 
73

the next largest company (National Oilwell Varco, with $9.8 billion in revenues). Only two firms 

are foreign-owned (John Wood Group PLC and Tenaris SA).

At the other end of the spectrum, Jamison Products LP reports less than $1 million in revenues 

and nine employees. The private firm with the highest revenue is National Flame & Forge, which 

reported 2007 revenues of $23.2 million. ERG could not locate employee or revenue information 

for two private firms—for Flow-Tech Industries, Inc., and Land & Sea Equipment International 

Corp.

Table 34 

Wellhead Equipment Companies in the Gulf of Mexico

Parent Company Headquarters City

Headquarters 

State

Public/ 

Private

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Cameron International Corp. Houston TX Public $4,666.37 15,400

General Electric Co. Fairfield CT Public $172,738.00 328,700

John Wood Group PLC Aberdeen, 

Aberdeenshire

Scotland Public $4,432.70 21,613

NATCO Group, Inc Houston TX Public $570.12 2,522

National Oilwell Varco Houston TX Public $9,789.00 31,198

RPC, Inc. Atlanta GA Public $690.23 2,370

Robbins & Myers, Inc Dayton OH Public $787.17 3,357

T-3 Energy Services, Inc. Houston TX Public $217.43 734

Tenaris SA Luxembourg Luxembourg Public $10.04 23,500

Bill Poole Products Inc New Iberia LA Private $6.00 10

Flow-Tech Industries Inc. Houston TX Private >$1.00 >4

Greene's Energy Group LLC Lafayette LA Private $30.30 >571

Houma Valve Service Inc Houma LA Private $1.00 25

Land & Sea Equipment 

International Corp.

Tampa FL Private

LE Simmons & Associates, 

Inc.

Houston TX Private $17.50 235

National Flame & Forge Houston TX Private $23.20 215

Totals >$193,980 >430,454

3.11.2 Locations

The 16 companies have about 110 offices within the GOM region. Table A-11 breaks down total 

2007 revenues and 2007 employees among each of these locations to the extent possible. At least 

4,523 jobs and at least $1.3 billion in revenue are associated with the wellhead equipment 

industry in the GOM region. Since many locations do not provide employee and revenue data, 

these figures underestimate the true values. 

Table 35 lists the regional employment distribution. Texas claims 45 percent of the locations, 64 

percent of the employees, and 68 percent of the identifiable revenues. Louisiana claims 54 

percent of the locations, 36 percent of the employees, and 32 percent of the identifiable revenues. 

There is one location in Florida, for which employee and revenue data were unavailable. 

Locations, employees, and revenues are dispersed among 23 counties and parishes in the GOM. 
74

Harris County has the highest number of locations (25), followed by Lafayette Parish in 

Louisiana, which has 20 locations. Harris County claims the highest percentage of employees 

(56 percent) and the highest percentage of 2007 revenues (59 percent). The regional distribution 

of employees and revenues is skewed by the absence of this information for several locations. 

Table 35 

Regional Distribution of Employees and Revenue—Wellhead Services

Number of Locations 2007 Employees 2007 Revenue

Region Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent

Florida 1 1%

Louisiana 59 54% 1,641 36.28% $421.69 31.60%

Texas 50 45% 2,882 63.72% $912.77 68.40%

Totals 110 100% 4,523 100.00% $1,334.46 100.00%

LA - Ascension 1 0.91% 3 0.07% $0.25 0.02%

LA - Bossier 5 4.55% 14 0.31% $4.25 0.32%

LA - Caddo 3 2.73% 35 0.77% $11.85 0.89%

LA - Calcasieu 2 1.82% 80 1.77% $15.17 1.14%

TX - Dallas 1 0.91%

TX - Fort Bend 4 3.64% 5 0.11% $7.30 0.55%

TX - Harris 25 22.73% 2,515 55.60% $788.53 59.09%

TX - Hidalgo 1 0.91% 12 0.27% $5.20 0.39%

FL - Hillsborough 1 0.91%

LA - Iberia 6 5.45% 261 5.77% $98.13 7.35%

LA - Jefferson 3 2.73% 170 3.76% $36.02 2.70%

TX - Jim Wells 4 3.64% 45 0.99% $8.99 0.67%

LA - Lafayette 20 18.18% 817 18.06% $211.85 15.88%

LA - Lafourche 1 0.91% 13 0.29% $5.64 0.42%

TX - Montgomery 3 2.73% 160 3.54% $62.75 4.70%

TX - Nueces 8 7.27% 87 1.92% $28.18 2.11%

LA - Orleans 2 1.82% 3 0.07% $0.64 0.05%

LA - Plaquemines 2 1.82% 9 0.20% $1.04 0.08%

TX - San Patricio 1 0.91% 22 0.49% $2.53 0.19%

LA - St. Mary 3 2.73% 8 0.18% $3.47 0.26%

LA - Terrebonne 11 10.00% 228 5.04% $33.38 2.50%

TX - Victoria 2 1.82% 11 0.24% $3.99 0.30%

LA - Waller 1 0.91% 25 0.55% $5.30 0.40%

Totals 110 100.00% 4,523 100.00% $1,334.46 100.00%

Table 36 summarizes the information by company. General Electric has the largest number of 

employees in the wellhead services sector; because GE is such a large conglomerate, though, 

these form less than 1 percent of the company’s staff. National Oilwell Varco has a corporate 

focus on the oil and gas industry but has operations across the globe serving both land-based and 

ocean-based operations. Thus, although the latter company has the most locations (37) and 773 

employees in the GOM region, this is still a small portion (about 2.5 percent) of its operations. 

ERG could not locate the total number of employees for Greene’s Energy Group and its 

acquisitions or LE Simmons & Associates, and thus could not identify the percentage of 

employees at GOM locations. Other companies, such as Houma Valve Service, Bill Poole 
75

Products, and T-3 Energy Services have a much stronger focus in the Gulf region, with the 

majority of their employees working within the region of interest.

Table 36 

Location Totals by Company—Wellhead Services

Parent Company

Number of 

GOM 

Locations

Number of 

Employees at 

GOM Locations

Percentage of 

Employees at 

GOM Locations

National Oilwell Varco 37 773 2.48%

Greene's Energy Group 18 571

John Wood Group PLC 10 243 1.12%

T-3 Energy Services 9 447 60.90%

NATCO Group, Inc 8 247 9.79%

General Electric Co. 6 1,050 0.32%

Cameron International Corp. 5 113 0.73%

LE Simmons & Associates, Inc. 3 105

Robbins & Myers, Inc 3 223 6.64%

RPC, Inc. 3

Tenaris SA 2 554 2.36%

Bill Poole Products Inc 2 8 80.00%

Flow-Tech Industries 1 4

Houma Valve Service Inc 1 25 100.00%

Land & Sea Equipment International Corp. 1

National Flame & Forge 1 160 74.42%

Totals 110 4,523

3.12 ACCOMMODATIONS

The companies discussed in this section offer a range of products and services, including:

• Manufacture of living quarters for production structures

• Manufacture of modular living quarters

• Flotel or accommodation rig leasing

• Consulting services on design and layout of galley and living quarters

3.12.1 Ownership Patterns and Company Size

Table 37 lists the 11 companies that ERG identified as providing accommodations to the 

offshore GOM. Only four companies are public and the largest of these, Prosafe SE, is 

headquartered in Cyprus. Prosafe SE is organized into two divisions, one for its FPSO vessels 

and the other for its accommodation rigs (called Offshore Support Services). The company owns 

11 of the world’s 17 semi-submersible accommodation/service rigs and one jack-up 

accommodation/service rig. Utilization rates for its accommodation rigs for 2007 and 2008 were 

88 percent and 92 percent, respectively.23

 

23 These high utilization rates and profitable returns encouraged the creation of Ocean Hotels, PLC, headquartered in 

Cyprus, with an office in Norway, and the stated intent of serving the GOM and other non–North Sea regions. As of 

In 2007, Prosafe SE reported $527 million in revenues, 
76

of which $376 million came from its Offshore Support Services division. During this period, six 

of its 12 rigs were in the GOM. In 2008, 34 percent of the company’s operating revenues came 

from its GOM operations (Prosafe 2007, 2008). Most revenues associated with leasing Prosafe’s 

rigs are not likely to stay in the GOM economic region due to its foreign headquarters and 

worldwide operations.

Table 37 

Accommodation Companies in the Gulf of Mexico

Parent Company

Headquarters 

City

Headquarters 

State

Public/ 

Private

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. Houma LA Public $472.74 1,850

Oil States International, Inc. Houston TX Public $2,088.24 6,551

Prosafe SE Larnaca Cyprus Public $527.10 1,360

Superior Energy Services, Inc New Orleans LA Public $1,572.47 4,400

Global Maritime Solutions LLC Abbeville LA Private

GulfLand Structures Lafayette LA Private

Leirvik Beacon Offshore Orange TX Private

Marine & Offshore Supplies, Inc Tampa FL Private

QCI Marine Offshore LLC Houston TX Private $24.00 175

Stallion Oilfield Services, Ltd. Houston TX Private $427.20 2,689

Taylors International Services, 

Inc.

Lafayette LA Private $69.00 700

Totals $5,180.75 17,725

Gulf Island Fabrication is a major fabricator of jackets and deck sections of fixed production 

platforms, ABS hull and/or deck sections of floating production platforms (TLPs, SPARs, 

FPSOs), conventional jackets for water depths up to 800 feet, deep-water structures, living 

quarters for offshore platforms, and other offshore components such as piles, wellhead 

protectors, and subsea templates. Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc., generated $472.74 million in 

2007 revenues. One of the company’s subsidiaries, Southport LLC, is involved in the design, 

construction, maintenance, and repair of accommodations for the offshore oil and gas industry. 

Southport LLC generated $33.02 million in 2007 revenues. Based on this information, about 7 

percent of total revenues were generated from the accommodations industry (Gulf Island 

Fabrication, Inc. 2007; D&B 2009). 

Oil States International, Inc., has three business segments—offshore products, tubular services, 

and well site services. Within the well site segment, the company offers modular workforce 

accommodations, catering, and logistics for remote onshore and offshore areas. In 2007, the 

company reported $2.1 billion in revenues, of which 15 percent ($312.8 million) were generated 

from accommodations (Oil States 2007). Oil States International is the largest company in Table 

 

February 2009, Ocean Hotels had to renegotiate higher costs and a longer delivery schedule with the Canadian 

shipyard (Davies Shipyard) building the vessels. Given the current economic downturn, it is unclear when and 

whether Ocean Hotels will operate in the GOM (Ocean Hotels 2009).
77

6, with $2.1 billion in revenues and about 6,550 employees, but only a fraction of these are 

associated with offshore accommodation services and supplies.

The fourth public company—Superior Energy Services, Inc.—generated $1.6 billion in 2007 

revenues. Superior Energy has a subsidiary—HB Rentals—within its Rental Tool Division 

which supplies temporary on and offshore accommodation modules. About half of Superior 

Energy’s revenues come from all operations in the GOM. The Rental Tool Division’s total 2007 

revenue was $496.3 million, of which $152 million came from GOM operations. That is, 

revenues from rental tool operations in the GOM accounted for almost 10 percent of Superior 

Energy Services’ 2007 revenues. This is an upper bound estimate for the role played by 

accommodation services; there are eight subsidiaries within the Rental Tool Division.

ERG could not locate revenue for four of the seven private firms (Global Maritime Solutions, 

GulfLand Structures, Leirvik Beacon Offshore, and Marine & Offshore Supplies, Inc.) whose 

focus appears to be building accommodation modules (Global Maritime Solutions 2009; 

GulfLand Structures 2009; Marine & Offshore Supplies 2009). Leirvik Beacon Offshore is a 

joint venture between Beacon Maritime and Leirvik Module Technology to build offshore 

accommodation modules (Leirvik Beacon 2009).

Of the three private firms (Stallion Oilfield Services, Taylors International Services, and QCI 

Marine) for which ERG could find revenue information, Stallion Oilfield Services is apparently 

the largest, with $427 million in revenues and nearly 2,700 employees. The company serves both 

the onshore and offshore regions, however, and offers additional services such as rig hauling, 

oilfield trucking, surface equipment rental, solids control and remediation services, and well site 

construction. Thus, it is likely that only a small fraction of its operations are offshore

accommodation services (Stallion Oilfield Services 2009). 

Taylors International Services appears in both the accommodations and catering sectors. Their 

focus is the layout and design of galley and living quarters for onshore and offshore oil and gas 

job sites (Taylors International Services 2009). QCI Marine Offshore LLC is headquartered in 

Houston, Texas, with a regional office in Pascagoula, Mississippi. 24

3.12.2 Locations

The parent companies listed in Table 37 have 21 locations in the GOM region, as shown in Table 

A-12. At least 1,338 jobs and at least $168.44 million in revenue are associated with the 

accommodations industry in the GOM region. ERG could not locate revenue and employment 

information for all locations, so there is a small degree of underestimation associated with the 

totals.

Table 38 lists the regional employment distribution. Louisiana claims over half of total locations 

(52 percent) and three-quarters of total 2007 revenues. Louisiana claims nearly all of the 

employees in the industry (94 percent), primarily due to three locations: Taylors International in 

 

24 Most locations for the contract offshore oilfield services are in Texas and Louisiana; however, QCI Marine is an 

example of the widespread distribution of economic support provided by the offshore oil and gas industry in the 

GOM region.
78

Lafayette (700 employees), Southport LLC/Gulf Island Fabrications in Houma (200 employees), 

and Stallion Offshore services in Abbeville (165 employees) (see Table A-12). 

On the other hand, Texas, which claims 38 percent of the locations, claims only 6 percent of the 

employees and only a quarter of total 2007 revenues. Florida claims 5 percent of the locations; 

however, employee and revenue data for those locations are unavailable. Mississippi, which also 

claims 5 percent of the locations, only claims 0.9 percent of employees and 0.8 percent of 

revenues. 

Locations, employees, and revenues are dispersed among 10 counties and parishes in the GOM. 

Employee and revenue data are unavailable for one county in Florida (Hillsborough) and one

county in Texas (Orange). Thus, the percentages are zero for these counties when some 

economic activity would flow through them. 

Table 38 

Regional Distribution of Employees and Revenue—Accommodations

Number of Locations 2007 Employees 2007 Revenue

Region Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent

Florida 1 4.76% 0 0.00% $0.00 0.00%

Louisiana 11 52.38% 1,251 93.50% $125.57 74.55%

Mississippi 1 4.76% 12 0.90% $1.38 0.82%

Texas 8 38.10% 75 5.61% $41.49 24.63%

Totals: 21 100.00% 1,338 100.00% $168.44 100.00%

TX – Brazoria 1 4.76% 15 1.12% $2.64 1.57%

TX – Harris 5 23.81% 30 2.24% $22.62 13.43%

FL – Hillsborough 1 4.76% 0 0.00% $0.00 0.00%

MS – Jackson 1 4.76% 12 0.90% $1.38 0.82%

TX - Jim Wells 1 4.76% 30 2.24% $16.23 9.64%

LA – Lafayette 5 23.81% 803 60.01% $72.24 42.89%

TX – Orange 1 4.76% 0 0.00% $0.00 0.00%

LA – Plaquemines 1 4.76% 76 5.68% $19.96 11.85%

LA – Terrebonne 2 9.52% 202 15.10% $33.12 19.66%

LA – Vermilion 3 14.29% 170 12.71% $0.25 0.15%

Totals 21 100.00% 1,338 100.00% $168.44 100.00%

Lafayette Parish in Louisiana and Harris County in Texas claim the highest percentage of 

locations (24 percent) followed by Vermilion Parish and Terrebonne Parish in Louisiana, which 

claim 14 and 10 percent of locations, respectively. The rest of the counties and parishes have one 

location (i.e., 5 percent) each.

Table 39 summarizes the data in Table 38 by company. The relative importance of Taylors 

International to Louisiana and the offshore accommodation sector is evident. Although the 

company has only one location, it has 700 employees, all of whom work in the offshore 

accommodations and catering sector. Superior Energy Services has the largest number of 

locations (five) through its subsidiaries.
79

Table 39 

Location Totals by Company—Accommodations

Parent Company

Number of GOM 

Locations

Number of 

Employees at GOM 

Locations

Percentage of Employees 

at GOM Locations

Superior Energy Services, Inc 5 132 3.00%

Oil States International, Inc. 3 92 1.40%

Stallion Oilfield Services, Ltd. 3 167 6.21%

Global Maritime Solutions LLC 2 5

QCI Marine Offshore LLC 2 42 24.00%

Marine & Offshore Supplies, Inc 1

Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. 1 200 10.81%

GulfLand Structures 1

Leirvik Beacon Offshore 1

Prosafe SE 1

Taylors International Services, Inc. 1 700 100.00%

3.13 AIR TRANSPORT

3.13.1 Ownership Patterns and Company Size

Table 40 lists the 11 companies that ERG identified as providing air transportation services to 

the offshore GOM. All firms are domestic. The three public firms are substantially larger than 

the private companies, a pattern seen throughout the oilfield services industries. Seacor 

Holdings, Inc., which offers both air and water transport, is the largest with $1.4 billion in 2007 

revenues. Seacor Holdings owns ERA Helicopters (Seacor Holdings 2008). The Bristow Group 

(formerly Offshore Logistics) is next-largest, with nearly $0.9 billion in 2007 revenues. PHI 

(formerly Petroleum Helicopters Inc.) reported $446 million in 2007 revenues. These three 

public companies are discussed in Dismukes (2010) with the observation that they account for 

nearly 80 percent of the available commercial aircraft in the GOM. 

Among the private companies, Evergreen Holdings is most interesting. The company offers a 

mix of aviation services (e.g., personnel transport, firefighting, and medivac) as well as 

agricultural production. Evergreen Helicopters, Inc., is one of nine subsidiaries and offers 

transportation services out of Galveston, Texas (Evergreen 2009). While the total number of 

Evergreen employees is between that of the Bristow Group and PHI, it is apparent that 

transporting personnel and material to offshore GOM locations is only a small part of Evergreen 

Holdings’ business. 

The remaining private companies are small, with 25 or fewer employees and $4 million or less in 

revenues. Thus, although the industry appears to be concentrated in three large providers, it is 

sufficiently competitive that seven private companies are able to compete for business.
80

Table 40 

Air Transportation Contractors in the Gulf of Mexico

Parent Company Headquarters City

Headquarters 

State

Public/ 

Private

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Bristow Group Inc. Houston TX Public $897.86 4,159

Petroleum Helicopters Inc. Lafayette LA Public $446.41 2,299

Seacor Holdings Inc. Fort Lauderdale FL Public $1,359.23 5,268

Central Helicopter Service Inc. Houston TX Private $1.30 15

Evergreen Holdings Inc. McMinnville OR Private 3,942

Go Helitrans Co Inc. Manvel TX Private $4.00

Houston Helicopters, Inc. Pearland TX Private $4.00 25

Industrial Helicopters Inc. Scott LA Private 10

Pelican Aviation Corp New Iberia LA Private $1.10 17

Rotocraft Leasing Broussard LA Private 350

Southern Helicopters Sunshine LA Private $3.70 15

Total 16,100

3.13.2 Locations

ERG identified 64 locations offering helicopter services to the GOM region; see Table A-13. At 

least 913 jobs and at least $158 million in revenue are associated with the air transportation 

contracting industry in the GOM region. Since a substantial number of locations do not provide 

employee and revenue data, these figures underestimate the true values. For example, Bristow 

Group reports that approximately 20 percent of its revenues come from GOM operations 

(Bristow Group 2009). This would be about $180 million for this company alone. PHI reports 

that 64 percent of its 2007 operating income (or about $285 million) came from its oil and gas 

segment, which provides helicopter transport to offshore platforms/structures in the GOM, 

Angola, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (PHI 2008). 

Table 41 lists the regional employment distribution. Louisiana claims 59 percent of the locations, 

82 percent of the employees, and 86 percent of the revenues. Texas claims 33 percent of the 

locations, 17 percent of the employees, and 13 percent of the revenues. Alabama claims 6 

percent of the locations, 0.2 percent of the employees, and 0.06 percent of the revenues. Florida 

claims 2 percent of the locations, 0.4 percent of the employees, and 0.6 percent of the revenues. 

Because employee and revenue data are unavailable for nearly half of the counties and parishes 

listed, the percentages are likely to be skewed. 

Helicopter services for offshore oil and gas operations originate at 64 locations in 22 counties 

and parishes in the GOM. Because there are so many counties and parishes, no single region 

claims a majority of locations, employees, or revenues. Galveston County (Texas), Terrebonne 

Parish (Louisiana), and Vermilion Parish (Louisiana) each claim 8 percent of the locations. 

Iberia Parish in Louisiana claims 37 percent of employees, which is the highest percentage, 

followed by Calcasieu Parish, Lafayette Parish, and Vermilion Parish, which claim 16 percent, 

12 percent, and 11 percent, respectively. Calcasieu Parish in Louisiana claims the highest 

percentage of revenues (47 percent), and Iberia Parish claims the second highest percentage of 

revenues (26 percent). 
81

Table 42 summarizes the data in Table 41 by company. Seacor Holdings (ERA Helicopters) and 

Bristow Group represent about 69 percent of the known GOM employment in this sector. This 

percentage would be lower if any information could be located for individual sites for PHI. For 

Seacor Holdings and Bristow Group, however, only a small fraction of employees work at GOM 

locations that offer air transport services. In contrast, the smaller private firms are unlikely to 

have more than 50 employees but more likely to have all of them work in the GOM in air 

transport for oil and gas operations.

Table 41 

Regional Distribution of Employees and Revenue—Air Transport

Number of Locations 2007 Employees 2007 Revenue

Region Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent

Alabama 4 6% 2 0.22% $0.10 0.06%

Florida 1 2% 4 0.44% $0.90 0.57%

Louisiana 38 59% 751 82.26% $136.28 86.13%

Texas 21 33% 156 17.09% 20.95 13.24%

Totals 64 100% 913 100.00% $158.23 100.00%

TX - Aransas 3 4.69% 0 0.00% $0.00 0.00%

TX - Brazoria 4 6.25% 59 6.46% $4.00 2.53%

LA - Calcasieu 3 4.69% 150 16.43% $74.30 46.96%

TX - Calhoun 2 3.13% 0 0.00% $0.00 0.00%

LA - Cameron 4 6.25% 30 3.29% $3.95 2.50%

TX - Galveston 5 7.81% 57 6.24% $15.56 9.83%

TX - Harris 2 3.13% 38 4.16% $1.30 0.82%

LA - Iberia 2 3.13% 336 36.80% $40.61 25.67%

LA - Iberville 1 1.56% 15 1.64% $3.70 2.34%

LA - Jefferson 1 1.56% 0 0.00% $0.00 0.00%

TX - Jefferson 2 3.13% 0 0.00% $0.00 0.00%

LA - Lafourche 4 6.25% 4 0.44% $0.09 0.06%

LA - Lafayette 3 4.69% 110 12.05% $0.00 0.00%

TX - Matagorda 2 3.13% 2 0.22% $0.09 0.06%

FL - Miami-Dade 1 1.56% 4 0.44% $0.90 0.57%

AL - Mobile 4 6.25% 2 0.22% $0.10 0.06%

TX - Nueces 1 1.56% 0 0.00% $0.00 0.00%

LA - Orleans 2 3.13% 0 0.00% $0.00 0.00%

LA - Plaquemines 4 6.25% 0 0.00% $0.00 0.00%

LA - Saint Mary 4 6.25% 2 0.22% $0.09 0.06%

LA - Terrebonne 5 7.81% 2 0.22% $0.26 0.16%

LA - Vermilion 5 7.81% 102 11.17% $13.28 8.39%

Totals 64 100% 913 100.00% $158.23 100.00%
82

Table 42 

Location Totals by Company—Air Transport

Parent Company

Number of GOM 

Locations

Number of 

Employees at GOM 

Locations

Percentage of 

Employees at GOM 

Locations

Seacor Holdings Inc. 18 153 2.9%

Bristow Group Inc. 14 480 11.5%

Petroleum Helicopters Inc. 12

Rotocraft Leasing 12 114

Go Helitrans Co Inc. 2 34

Central Helicopter Service Inc. 1 15 100%

Houston Helicopters, Inc. 1 25 100%

Industrial Helicopters Inc. 1 10 100%

Pelican Aviation Corp 1 17 100%

Southern Helicopters 1 15 100%

Evergreen Holdings Inc. 1 50 1.3%

Totals 64 913

3.14 WATER TRANSPORT

3.14.1 Ownership Patterns and Company Size

Table 43 lists the 100 companies that ERG identified as providing water transportation services 

to the offshore GOM. About 12 percent of the companies listed are public and 88 percent are 

private. The public firm with the highest revenues is Saipem SpA, which has 2007 revenues of 

9,530 million euros, equivalent to 13.3 billion U.S. dollars, followed by Superior Energy 

Services Inc., Seacor Holdings, Inc., and Tidewater, Inc., which have 2007 revenues of $1.6 

billion, $1.4 billion, and $1.1 billion, respectively. Seacor Holdings and Michael Baker 

Corporation have a joint venture in Energy Logistics, Inc. Both companies appear in Table 43, 

while the locations in Table A-14 appear under Energy Logistics.

Table 43 

Water Transportation Contractors in the Gulf of Mexico 

Parent Company

Headquarters 

City

Headquarters 

State

Public/ 

Private

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Allegro Biodiesel Corp. Los Angeles CA Public $7.40 200

GulfMark Offshore Inc. Houston TX Public $306.03 1,300

Hercules Offshore Houston TX Public $766.79 3,300

Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc. Covington LA Public $338.97 1,092

Martin Midstream Partners L.P. Kilgore TX Public $770.92 396

Michael Baker Corp Moon Township PA Public $727.00 4,546

Saipem SpA Milan Italy Public EUR 9,530 33,373

Seacor Holdings Inc. Fort Lauderdale FL Public $1,359.23 5,268

Smit Internationale NV Rotterdam, 

Zuid-Holland

The 

Netherlands

Public EUR 551.5 2,783

Superior Energy Services, Inc. New Orleans LA Public $1,572.47 4,400

Tidewater Inc. New Orleans LA Public $1,125.26 8,000
83

Table 43. Water Transportation Contractors in the Gulf of Mexico (continued). 

Parent Company

Headquarters 

City

Headquarters 

State

Public/ 

Private

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Trico Marine Services, Inc. Houston TX Public $256.12 659

ABC Marine Towing LLC Belle Chasse LA Private $0.12 1

Abdon Callais Offshore LLC Golden Meadow LA Private $87.99 300

Adams Towing Corp Morgan City LA Private $0.72 10

AMC Liftboats Inc. Golden Meadow LA Private $2.20 20

Apex Oil Company Inc. Saint Louis MO Private $7,800.00 700

Argosy Shipping (USA) LP Bellaire TX Private $1.90 20

B&J Martin Inc. Galliano LA Private $8.05 30

Barnett Marine, Inc. Belle Chasse LA Private $4.90 45

Basin Marine, Inc. Berwick LA Private

Bay Houston Towing Co. Houston TX Private $11.70 146

BBC Chartering Bellaire TX Private $2.20 20

Belle Pass Towing Corp Golden Meadow LA Private $2.80 35

Big E Marine Corp New Orleans LA Private

Big R Towing Inc Jeanerette LA Private $0.09 2

Bordelon Marine Inc. Lockport LA Private $19.48 85

Broussard Brothers Inc. Abbeville LA Private $9.90 150

Brown Water Marine Service Inc. Rockport TX Private $10.60 100

BSI Marine Contractors Inc. Cut Off LA Private $0.08 2

Bud's Boat Rental Inc. Venice LA Private

Buffalo Marine Service Houston TX Private $25.40 90

C & G Boats Inc. Golden Meadow LA Private $1.40 20

Caillou Island Towing Co Inc. Houma LA Private 30

Cameron Offshore Boats Inc. Cameron LA Private $5.03 45

Candy Fleet Corp Morgan City LA Private $0.33 5

Cashman Equipment Corp. Boston MA Private $2.60 20

Celtic Marine Corp. Baton Rouge LA Private $1.76 30

Cenac Towing Co Inc. Houma LA Private $95.55 458

Central Boat Rentals, Inc. Berwick LA Private $13.00 150

Central Gulf Towing Inc. Cut Off LA Private $20.00 47

COMAR Marine Corp Amelia LA Private $0.45 10

Crewboats Inc. Chalmette LA Private $7.20 132

Crowley Marine Services Inc. Jacksonville FL Private $1,622.30 4,074

D & B Boat Rentals Inc. New Iberia LA Private $1.10 15

Dawn Services Inc. Gretna LA Private $5.90 80

Dean Maritime Ltd. Co. Houston TX Private $1.00 3

Denet Towing Service Inc. Boothville LA Private $1.30 30

Diamond Services Corp. Amelia LA Private $17.10 161

Dockwise USA Inc. Houston TX Private $0.48 6

Doerle's Quarterboats Inc. New Iberia LA Private $0.14 2

Double Eagle Marine LLC New Iberia LA Private $31.87 70

Ed Broussard Marine Service Inc. Loreauville LA Private $0.98 13

Freedom Marine Services, Inc. Houma LA Private $0.95 8

G & H Towing Co Galveston TX Private 124

Galiano Tugs Inc. Cut Off LA Private $2.00 40

Garber Industries Inc. Broussard LA Private $8.50 140

Global Marine Transport, Inc. Houston TX Private $0.50 6

Harbor Towing & Fleeting Inc. Metairie LA Private
84

Table 43. Water Transportation Contractors in the Gulf of Mexico (continued). 

Parent Company

Headquarters 

City

Headquarters 

State

Public/ 

Private

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Harvey Gulf International Marine 

Inc.

Harvey LA Private $2.60 15

Hustler Marine Services Inc. Port O Connor TX Private $0.33 7

Iberia Marine Service LLC New Iberia LA Private $4.00 28

Inland Marine Management 

Corp./Huey L Cheramie Inc.

Galliano LA Private $2.50 70

International Offshore Services Larose LA Private $54.30 88

JW Banta Towing Inc. Sunshine LA Private $4.50 55

Kevin Gros Consulting & Marine 

Services Inc.

Larose LA Private $6.70 115

Kilgore Offshore Inc. Scott LA Private

KMJ Services Inc. Cut Off LA Private $0.31 2

L & M BoTruc Rental Inc. Galliano LA Private $5.40 150

Louisiana International Marine, Inc. Gretna LA Private $1.00 20

Mammoet USA Inc. Rosharon TX Private $0.09 75

Marine Centre, Inc. Hahnville LA Private $0.50 6

Marine Transportation Consultants Houston TX Private

McDonough Marine Service Metairie LA Private

MegaFleet Towing Co Inc. Pasadena TX Private $5.80 75

Moran Transportation Co New Canaan CT Private $51.30 550

Movable Offshore Boats Inc. Larose LA Private $0.01 3

Muchowich Offshore Oil Services 

Inc.

Freeport TX Private $12.72 55

NMA Maritime & Offshore 

Contractors Inc.

Houston TX Private $2.00 5

Oceanic Fleet Inc. Boutte LA Private $2.70 37

Odyssea Marine Berwick LA Private $1.60 20

Offshore Express Inc. Houma LA Private $6.00 325

Offshore Marine Contractors Inc. Cut Off LA Private $2.10 44

Offshore Towing Inc. Larose LA Private

Otto Candies LLC Des Allemands LA Private $21.70 250

Phil Guilbeau Offshore Service Inc. Galliano LA Private $0.94 23

Port Technical Services Inc. Bellaire TX Private $0.30 6

Rene J Cheramie & Sons Inc. Lafayette LA Private

Rentrop Tugs Morgan City LA Private

Ryan Marine Services Galveston TX Private $1.10 36

Sea Boat Rentals Inc. Galliano LA Private $3.30 35

Sea Horse Marine Inc. Lockport LA Private $20.00 40

Signet Maritime Corp Houston TX Private $41.27 65

Southern States Offshore Inc. Houston TX Private $3.00 65

Stagg Marine Inc. Morgan City LA Private $2.30 24

Supreme Offshore Service Inc. Houma LA Private $1.41 100

Teekay Corp Houston TX Private $7.20 30

Tiger Towing Morgan City LA Private $0.36 6

United Tugs Inc. Harvey LA Private 50

Waterways Towing & Offshore 

Services, Inc.

Mobile AL Private $0.90 15

Total 75,282
85

The industry sector is sufficiently competitive to include 87 private companies. For some 

companies, such as Apex Oil Company, water transportation in the GOM is a small part of 

overall business activities. Apex Oil Company was named by Forbes magazine as the 258th

largest private American company (Forbes 2008) and is the largest private company in Table 43, 

with $7.8 billion in revenue. Apex is primarily an oil distributor with a small tug and barge 

business. At the other end of the range are several small businesses with five or fewer employees 

and $100,000 or less in revenues.

3.14.2 Locations

The parent companies listed in Table 43 have 144 offices in the GOM region. Table A-14 breaks 

down total 2007 revenues and 2007 employees among each of these individual office locations. 

At least 5,055 jobs and at least $794 million in revenue are associated with the water 

transportation contracting industry in the GOM region. Table 44 lists the regional employment 

distribution based on the information in Table A-14. Employee and revenue data were 

unavailable for two counties in Texas (Nueces and San Patricio), two parishes in Louisiana 

(Jefferson Davis and Orleans), and one county in Florida (Escambia). Louisiana claims 65 

percent of the locations, 80 percent of the employees, and 81 percent of the revenues. Texas 

claims 29 percent of the locations, 17 percent of the employees, and 18 percent of the revenues. 

Alabama claims 3 percent of the locations, 0.8 percent of the employees, and 0.6 percent of the 

revenues. Florida claims 2 percent of the locations, 2 percent of the employees, and 0.4 percent 

of the revenues. 

Locations, employees, and revenues are dispersed among 33 counties and parishes in the GOM, 

with no single region claiming a majority of locations, employees, or revenues. Even though 

Louisiana claims the majority of locations (94), these are distributed along the coastal parishes. 

In contrast, in Texas, Harris County claims the highest percentage of locations (18 percent). 

Lafourche Parish in Louisiana claims the second highest percentage of locations (16 percent) 

along with the highest percentage of employees (23 percent) and revenues (30 percent). 

Terrebonne Parish in Louisiana claims the second highest percentage of employees (22 percent), 

and Calcasieu Parish in Louisiana claims the second highest percentage of revenues (25 percent).

Table 45 summarizes the data by company. This sector is characterized by a large number of 

single-location companies (81 percent), and most of these (61 percent of the total population) 

have all of their employees offering water transportation services in the GOM. Seacor Holdings, 

Inc., has the greatest number of GOM locations (10), while Hercules Offshore has the largest 

number of employees (560) working at its two locations in the GOM. Saipem SpA lists only one 

employee at one location. This is likely to indicate a sales office where the company would be 

bringing in a chartered/leased vessel into the GOM. On the other hand, ABC Marine Towing 

LLC and McDonough Marine Service also list a single employee. ABC Marine Towing’s 

revenues are small enough that this could be a single-person operation. ERG could not locate 

revenue information for McDonough Marine Service, so we cannot speculate whether it is a oneperson operation or uses contract personnel.
86

Table 44 

Regional Distribution of Employees and Revenue—Water Transport

Number of Locations 2007 Employees 2007 Revenue

Region Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent

Alabama 5 3% 42 0.83% $4.81 0.61%

Florida 3 2% 83 1.64% $2.93 0.37%

Louisiana 94 65% 4,050 80.12% $646.08 81.33%

Texas 42 29% 880 17.41% 140.59 17.70%

Totals 144 100% 5,055 100.00% $794.41 100.00%

TX - Aransas 1 0.69% 15 0.30% $0.00 0.00%

TX - Brazoria 4 2.78% 160 3.17% $12.81 1.61%

LA - Calcasieu 4 2.78% 208 4.11% $201.26 25.33%

TX - Calhoun 1 0.69% 7 0.14% $0.33 0.04%

LA - Cameron 2 1.39% 12 0.24% $0.00 0.00%

TX - Cameron 1 0.69% 15 0.30% $1.46 0.18%

LA - East Baton Rouge 2 1.39% 20 0.40% $1.16 0.15%

FL - Escambia 1 0.69% 0 0.00% $0.00 0.00%

TX - Galveston 4 2.78% 68 1.35% $1.36 0.17%

TX - Harris 26 18.06% 486 9.61% $108.83 13.70%

FL - Hillsborough 1 0.69% 70 1.38% $1.00 0.13%

LA - Iberia 7 4.86% 130 2.57% $38.18 4.81%

LA - Iberville 1 0.69% 4 0.08% $0.00 0.00%

LA - Jefferson 7 4.86% 165 3.26% $9.50 1.20%

TX - Jefferson 3 2.08% 129 2.55% $15.80 1.99%

LA - Jefferson Davis 1 0.69% 0 0.00% $0.00 0.00%

LA - Lafayette 4 2.78% 160 3.17% $11.20 1.41%

LA - Lafourche 23 15.97% 1,176 23.26% $235.26 29.61%

LA - Lake Charles 1 0.69% 45 0.89% $5.03 0.63%

FL - Miami-Dade 1 0.69% 13 0.26% $1.93 0.24%

AL - Mobile 5 3.47% 42 0.83% $4.81 0.61%

TX - Nueces 1 0.69% 0 0.00% $0.00 0.00%

LA - Orleans 2 1.39% 0 0.00% $0.00 0.00%

LA - Plaquemines 6 4.17% 79 1.56% $8.67 1.09%

LA - Saint Bernard 1 0.69% 132 2.61% $7.20 0.91%

LA - Saint Charles 4 2.78% 256 5.06% $22.20 2.79%

LA - Saint John the Baptist 1 0.69% 12 0.24% $1.55 0.20%

LA - Saint Mary 15 10.42% 362 7.16% $29.42 3.70%

LA - Saint Tammany 1 0.69% 33 0.65% $0.00 0.00%

TX - San Patricio 1 0.69% 0 0.00% $0.00 0.00%

LA - Terrebonne 9 6.25% 1,093 21.62% $41.78 5.26%

LA - Vermilion 2 1.39% 150 2.97% $9.90 1.25%

LA - West Baton Rouge 1 0.69% 13 0.26% $23.77 2.99%

Totals 144 100.00% 5,055 100.00% $794.41 100.00%
87

Table 45 

Location Totals by Company—Water Transport

Parent Company

Number of 

GOM 

Locations

Number of 

Employees at 

GOM Locations

Percentage of 

Employees at 

GOM Locations

Seacor Holdings Inc. 10 315 6.0%

Allegro Biodiesel Corp. 7 35 17.5%

Bay Houston Towing Co. 4 42 28.8%

Energy Logistics, Inc. 4 18

Odyssea Marine 4

Signet Maritime Corp 4 20 30.8%

Celtic Marine Corp. 3 13 43.3%

GulfMark Offshore Inc. 3

Martin Midstream Partners L.P. 3 56 14.1%

McDonough Marine Service 3 1

Apex Oil Company Inc. 2 25 3.6%

Cashman Equipment Corp. 2 7 35.0%

Cenac Towing Co Inc. 2 458 100%

Crowley Marine Services Inc. 2 230 5.6%

Hercules Offshore 2 560 17.0%

Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc. 2 33 3.0%

International Offshore Services 2 85 96.6%

Moran Transportation Co 2 69 12.5%

Trico Marine Services, Inc. 2

ABC Marine Towing LLC 1 1 100%

Abdon Callais Offshore LLC 1 300 100%

Adams Towing Corp 1 10 100%

AMC Liftboats Inc. 1 20 100%

Argosy Shipping (USA) LP 1 20 100%

B&J Martin Inc. 1 30 100%

Barnett Marine, Inc. 1 45 100%

Basin Marine, Inc. 1

BBC Chartering 1 20 100%

Belle Pass Towing Corp 1 35 100%

Big E Marine Corp 1

Big R Towing Inc 1 2 100%

Bordelon Marine Inc. 1 85 100%

Broussard Brothers Inc. 1 150 100%

Brown Water Marine Service Inc. 1 15 15.0%

BSI Marine Contractors Inc. 1 2 100%

Bud's Boat Rental Inc. 1

Buffalo Marine Service 1 90 100%

C & G Boats Inc. 1 20 100%

Caillou Island Towing Co Inc. 1 30 100%

Cameron Offshore Boats Inc. 1 45 100%

Candy Fleet Corp 1 5 100%

Central Boat Rentals, Inc. 1 150 100%

Central Gulf Towing Inc. 1 47 100%

COMAR Marine Corp 1 10 100%

Crewboats Inc. 1 132 100%

D & B Boat Rentals Inc. 1 15 100%
88

Table 45. Location Totals by Company—Water Transport (continued). 

Parent Company

Number of 

GOM 

Locations

Number of 

Employees at 

GOM Locations

Percentage of 

Employees at 

GOM Locations

Dawn Services Inc. 1 80 100%

Dean Maritime Ltd. Co. 1 3 100%

Denet Towing Service Inc. 1 30 100%

Diamond Services Corp. 1 100 62.1%

Dockwise USA Inc. 1 6 100%

Doerle's Quarterboats Inc. 1 2 100%

Double Eagle Marine LLC 1 70 100%

Ed Broussard Marine Service Inc. 1 13 100%

Freedom Marine Services, Inc. 1 8 100%

G & H Towing Co 1 30 24.2%

Galiano Tugs Inc. 1 40 100%

Garber Industries Inc. 1 25 17.9%

Global Marine Transport, Inc. 1 6 100%

Harbor Towing & Fleeting Inc. 1

Harvey Gulf International Marine Inc. 1 15 100%

Hustler Marine Services Inc. 1 7 100%

Iberia Marine Service LLC 1 28 100%

Inland Marine Management Corp./Huey L Cheramie Inc. 1 70 100%

JW Banta Towing Inc. 1 4 7.3%

Kevin Gros Consulting & Marine Services Inc. 1 115 100%

Kilgore Offshore Inc. 1

KMJ Services Inc. 1 2 100%

L & M BoTruc Rental Inc. 1 150 100%

Louisiana International Marine, Inc. 1 20 100%

Mammoet USA Inc. 1 75 100%

Marine Centre, Inc. 1 6 100%

Marine Transportation Consultants 1

MegaFleet Towing Co Inc. 1 75 100%

Movable Offshore Boats Inc. 1 3 100%

Muchowich Offshore Oil Services Inc. 1 55 100%

NMA Maritime & Offshore Contractors Inc. 1 5 100%

Oceanic Fleet Inc. 1 30 81.1%

Offshore Express Inc. 1 75 23.1%

Offshore Marine Contractors Inc. 1 44 100%

Offshore Towing Inc. 1

Otto Candies LLC 1 250 100%

Phil Guilbeau Offshore Service Inc. 1 23 100%

Port Technical Services Inc. 1 6 100%

Rene J Cheramie & Sons Inc. 1

Rentrop Tugs 1 4

Ryan Marine Services 1 36 100%

Saipem SpA 1 1 0.003%

Sea Boat Rentals Inc. 1 35 100%

Sea Horse Marine Inc. 1 40 100%

Smit Internationale NV 1 12 0.4%

Southern States Offshore Inc. 1 65 100%

Stagg Marine Inc. 1 24 100%

Superior Energy Services, Inc. 1
89

Table 45. Location Totals by Company—Water Transport (continued). 

Parent Company

Number of 

GOM 

Locations

Number of 

Employees at 

GOM Locations

Percentage of 

Employees at 

GOM Locations

Supreme Offshore Service Inc. 1 20 20.0%

Teekay Corp 1 30 100%

Tidewater Inc. 1

Tiger Towing 1 6 100%

United Tugs Inc. 1 50 100%

Waterways Towing & Offshore Services, Inc. 1 15 100%

Totals 144 5,055

3.15 CATERING

Catering services in the GOM are offered by a variety of companies. Some are large, 

multinational firms that focus on food management services for a wide variety of businesses and 

institutions across the world. Annual reports for these companies might include all offshore oil 

and gas operations under “remote services” with no further distinction by geography. 

Other companies offer a mix of accommodation and food services. Accordingly, some 

companies and locations might appear in both the accommodations sectors and food service 

sectors of this study. However, duplicate entries are removed when we discuss the broad 

spectrum of service industries to the offshore oil and gas industry (see Table 1 in the Executive 

Summary, p. 3).

Some companies, usually the smaller ones, focus on catering to the offshore oil and gas industry 

operating in the GOM. In some cases, small companies that service only the GOM have been 

absorbed into larger multinational firms that serve many geographic regions. For example, Delta 

Catering Management was acquired by Sodexo in 2009 (Offshore Oil & Gas News 2009). But, 

as we have seen in other sectors, some small businesses find their niche and compete 

successfully. 

3.15.1 Ownership Patterns and Company Size

Table 46 lists the 15 parent companies that ERG identified as providing catering services to the 

offshore GOM, along with their corporate headquarters states, ownership (public or private), and 

2007 revenues and employees. 

Of the 15 companies, three are publicly traded: Compass Group PLC, Oil Services International, 

and Sodexo Alliance.25

 

25 Formerly known as Sodexho Alliance, the company changed its name in January 2008 (Sodexo 2008). Although 

the baseline for this project is 2007, we have changed the name in the text and tables for clarity.

Compass Group PLC and Sodexo Alliance are foreign-owned. Compass 

Group PLC, a British firm, has the second highest revenues with £10,268 million (approximately 

$14,526 million), of which £4,162 million (about $5,888 million) was generated in North 

America (Compass 2007). Compass Group PLC falls into the category of large, multinational 
90

firms, with the “remote sector” covering international offshore and military food management 

projects.

Table 46 

Catering Companies in the Gulf of Mexico

Parent Company Headquarters City

Headquarters 

State

Public/ 

Private

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Compass Group PLC Chertsey, Surrey England Public £10,268.00 365,630

Oil States International, Inc. Houston TX Public $2,088.24 6,551

Sodexo Alliance SA

Issy Les Moulineaux, 

Hauts De Seine France Public $17,694.00 342,380 

Affiliated Marine Supply Inc Houma LA Private $0.30 8

Aramark Holdings Corp. Philadelphia PA Private $11,621.20 250,000

ART Catering Inc Belle Chasse LA Private $22.00 380

Cardinal Culinary Services, LLC Seabrook TX Private $0.57 26

Coastal Catering LLC Houma LA Private <$.50 9

Craig Group Ltd. Aberdeen Scotland Private £110.00 1,000

Doerle Food Service LLC Broussard LA Private $66.50 206

G & J Land & Marine Food 

Distributors Inc. Morgan City LA Private $15.70 75

Jakes Finer Foods Inc. Houston TX Private $25.60 120

Sonoco Houma LA Private $6.50 300

Taylors International Services Inc. Lafayette LA Private $69.00 700

Trinity Catering Inc. Houma LA Private $12.00 200

Total 967,585

Sodexo Alliance has the highest revenue listed in Table 46 (about $17.7 billion in 2007, see 

Sodexho 2007). With more than 1,400 entries in its worldwide family tree (D&B 2009) Sodexo 

is a large, multinational firm with a “remote sites” segment. The company lists itself as the 

second largest company offering food and facilities management services to remote sites 

worldwide. This sector represents about 7 percent of total revenues ($1,153 million) and 27,366 

employees worldwide. Sodexo appears to have grown its market for GOM services by the 

acquisition of Delta Catering Management and Energy Catering Services (Offshore Oil & Gas 

News 2009). 

Oil States International, a domestic firm, has several major business sectors including the design 

and fabrication of connector products for subsea pipelines and offshore platforms, the 

distribution of casing and production tubing (primarily for onshore oil and gas operations), and 

well site services including accommodations and food services. Oil States International is about 

one-fifth to one-ninth the size of Compass Group PLC or Sodexo.

The lower part of Table 46 summarizes the information on privately held companies. Aramark 

Holdings Corporation is similar in size to the public companies Compass Group PLC and 

Sodexo Alliance and is considered the largest domestic food service company. For awhile, 

Aramark was a public company but went private at the end of 2006 (AP 2006; Aramark 2007). 

Craig Group, Inc., was the only company in the food services sector that was both foreign-owned 

and private. Craig Group sold its food service to Strachan’s Ltd. in 2008 but is retained in Table 
91

46 and Table A-15 because of the 2007 baseline (Craig Group 2008). All the remaining 

companies on Table 46 had less than $70 million in revenues.

3.15.2 Locations

The companies listed in Table 46 have 21 locations serving the GOM; see Table A-15. The 

catering subsector accounts for 4,270 jobs and $439 million in revenues.

Compass Group PLC illustrates the difficulty with integrating data from various sources to tease 

out the revenues and employees associated with specific locations that offer services in the 

offshore GOM. The Gulf Coast Oil Directory (GCOD 2008) lists Coastal Food Service, Inc., in 

Carencro, Louisiana, and Eurest Support Services in Lafayette, Louisiana, both of which are 

owned by Compass Group PLC. ERG could confirm the information in GCOD easily for the 

Carencro location. GCOD (2008) lists an employee range of 28 to100 and revenues of less than 

$25 million, which is consistent with the information ERG located in D&B (2009): 80 

employees and $2 million in revenue. 

The difficulties arise with the Lafayette location. GCOD (2008) lists between 500 and 1,000 

employees and revenues of $1 billion or more for the Eurest Support Services location in 

Lafayette. For the same location, D&B (2009) lists 1,200 employees and $42.5 million in 

revenue while manta.com lists 20 to 49 employees but no estimated revenues (manta.com 2009). 

The manta.com report provided an alternate name of SHRM Catering. A further Internet search 

identified SHRM Catering as a company acquired by Compass Group in 1997 (Caterersearch 

2008). The D&B (2009) corporate tree for Compass Group lists the Lafayette location (among 

the 1,100 entries in the Compass Group corporate tree) under SHRM Catering with the 1,200 

employees and $42.5 million in revenue. ERG identified a third estimate of the number of 

Compass Group employees from the Lafayette Economic Development Authority, which listed 

831 employees at Compass Group “locations”—implying that there is more than one location—

within the Parish (LEDA 2008). ERG placed a call to resolve the discrepancy. The callee replied 

that they do not give out company information but opined that the 1,200 estimate was closer to 

reality than the 20 to 49 estimate. ERG decided that the employee estimate of 831 probably 

represented the recent number of employees at both the Carencro and Lafayette locations. The 

D&B data estimates are therefore more credible than the manta.com estimate and the 1,200 

number is more likely to be the number of employees in 2007 before the general economic 

downturn of late 2008. As a result, Table A-15 lists the information from D&B (2009). For 

Compass Group, then, catering services rendered in the offshore GOM represent 0.30 percent of 

total revenues and 0.76 percent of revenues generated in North America. From another 

perspective, Compass Group represents about a quarter of the employment (but only 10 percent 

of the revenues) in this oil services contract industry subsector.

Table 47 summarizes the regional distribution of jobs and revenues. Louisiana claims most (81 

percent) of the locations and nearly all of the employees and revenues (92 percent). Texas claims 

19 percent of the locations and about 8 percent of both employees and revenues.

Locations, employees, and revenues are dispersed among eight counties and parishes in the 

GOM region. Lafayette and Terrebonne Parishes in Louisiana claim nearly half the locations, 

two-thirds of the employees, but only 40 percent of the revenues. In contrast, Jefferson Parish 

contains about 9.5 percent of the locations, 15 percent of the employees, but 32 percent of the 
92

revenues.26

Table 47 

Regional Distribution of Employees and Revenue

The few locations in Texas are all in Harris County and appear to be smaller in terms 

of employees and revenues. That is, Harris County has nearly 20 percent of the locations but 

about 8 percent of the employees and revenues.

Number of Locations 2007 Employees 2007 Revenue

Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent

Louisiana 17 81% 3,915 91.7% $403.3 91.9%

Texas 4 19% 355 8.3% $35.6 8.1%

Totals 21 100% 4,270 100% $438.8 100%

LA – Caddo 1 4.8% 29 0.7% $24.98 5.7%

TX - Harris 4 19.0% 355 8.3% $35.55 8.1%

LA - Jefferson 2 9.5% 650 15.2% $138.70 31.6%

LA - Lafayette 5 23.8% 2,166 50.7% $151.58 34.5%

LA - Lafourche 1 4.8% 7 0.2% $6.03 1.4%

LA - Plaquemines 2 9.5% 456 10.7% $41.96 9.6%

LA - Saint Mary 1 4.8% 75 1.8% $15.70 3.6%

LA - Terrebonne 5 23.8% 532 12.5% $24.30 5.5%

Totals 21 100% 4,270 100% $438.80 100%

Table 48 summarizes the information by parent company. For large, multinational companies in 

food services (such as Sodexo, Compass Group, and Aramark), the operations in the GOM are a 

very small part of overall operations (less than 0.5 percent). Similarly, for the large multinational 

firms with other oilfield service sectors, food management and catering account for less than 2 

percent of revenues (Oil States 2009). These four large companies account for about 30 percent 

of the jobs in this subsector. This implies that the remaining 60 percent of the employment is 

provided by small, private companies that focus on the GOM.

 

26 ERG will not speculate whether this indicates that Sodexo Alliance locations are run more efficiently than 

Compass locations or is an artifact of finding location-specific data.
93

Table 48 

Summary of GOM Employment in Catering by Company

Parent Company

2007 

Employees

Number of 

GOM 

Locations

Number of 

Employees at GOM 

Locations

Percentage of 

Employees at GOM 

Locations

Sodexo Alliance SA 342,380 3 665 0.2% 

Oil States International, Inc. 6,551 2 92 1.4%

Doerle Food Service LLC 206 3 206 100%

Compass Group PLC 365,630 2 1,280 0.4% 

Affiliated Marine Supply Inc 8 1 8 100% 

Aramark Holdings Corp. 250,000 1 200 0.1%

ART Catering Inc 380 1 380 100%

Cardinal Culinary Services, LLC 26 1 26 100% 

Coastal Catering LLC 9 1 9 100% 

Craig Group Ltd. 1,000 1 9 0.9%

G & J Land & Marine Food 

Distributors Inc. 75 1 75 100%

Jakes Finer Foods Inc. 120 1 120 100% 

Sonoco Wholesale Grocers 300 1 300 100% 

Taylors International Services Inc. 700 1 700 100% 

Trinity Catering Inc. 200 1 200 100%

Totals 21 4,270

3.16 WORKOVERS

3.16.1 Ownership Patterns and Company Size

Table 49 lists the 18 companies that ERG identified as providing workover services in the GOM. 

The baseline for the profile is 2007, so W-H Energy Services is listed although it was acquired 

by Smith International in 2008 (Kamalakaran 2008). Unlike the catering sector described in 

Section 3.15, the workover/well services sector is dominated by large public companies whose 

primary business is oil and gas operations. Two of the companies are foreign—Expro 

International and Helix Energy Solutions Group. The few privately owned companies are less 

than 1 percent of the size of the publicly owned firms.

3.16.2 Locations

The 18 companies listed in Table 49 have 86 locations that appear to service the GOM; see Table 

A-16. ERG could not find location-specific data for nearly one-third of entries. This might 

indicate that the large, multi-location companies do not maintain location-specific records or, 

more likely, that they do not report information they consider to be business sensitive. Two focal 

points of this project are to 1) present the data as they are available and 2) present the geographic 

distribution of the revenues as a percent of the total rather than the absolute value of the total. 

Although the study can document 5,367 employees and about $557 million in revenues for this 

subsector, these are likely to be underestimates that provide a lower bound estimate for this 

subsector. More important, however, is the identification of the regional distribution of these 

firms within the GOM region. There are methods to impute missing data, such as using the 
94

average number of employees and revenues for all locations where a company does not report 

such information, that can be taken by future projects to refine the data for further analysis. 

Table 49 

Companies Offering Workover Services in the Gulf of Mexico

Parent Company

Headquarters 

City

Headquarters 

State

Public/ 

Private

2007 Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Allis-Chalmers Energy Inc. Houston TX Public $675.95 3,050

BJ Services Co. Houston TX Public $4,802.4 16,700

Boots & Coots Houston TX Public $105.3 521

Complete Production Services Houston TX Public $1,838.0 7,062

Expro International Group Ltd. Reading Great Britain Public £518.8 4,000

Halliburton Co. Houston TX Public $15,264 51,000

Helix Energy Solutions Group Perth

Western 

Australia Public $1,767.40 3,370

Nabors Industries Ltd Houston TX Public $4,956 23,965

Pride International Inc. Houston TX Public $2,043.80 6,900

RPC Incorporated Atlanta GA Public $690 2,370

Schlumberger NV Houston TX Public $23,276 80,000

Superior Energy Services Inc. Harvey LA Public $1,573 4,500

TETRA Technologies Inc. The Woodlands TX Public $982 2,895

W-H Energy Services Broussard LA Public $1,127 2,959

Estis Well Service LLC New Iberia LA Private $3.9 40

Major Equipment & 

Remediation Services Inc. Morgan City LA Private $10 50 

Spartan Offshore Drilling LLC Metairie LA Private $1 8

Thru Tubing Systems Inc. New Iberia LA Private $1 10

Total 209,400

Table 50 summarizes the regional distribution of employees and revenues. The lack of 

information for nearly one-third of the locations results in some skewing of the data. Louisiana 

and Texas split the number of locations fairly evenly, yet Louisiana appears to claim nearly 60 

percent of the employees and nearly three-quarters of the revenues. Revenue data are missing for 

20 of the 41 Texas locations, although employee data were identified for 27 of the 41 Texas 

locations. The workover subsector appears to be concentrated in Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana, 

which has about 35 percent of the subsection employees.

Table 51 summarizes the information by parent company. BJ Services tops the list in terms of 

the number of locations; a focus on workover and well service activities made it attractive to 

Baker Hughes, which acquired the firm in August 2009 (Offshore Magazine 2009). Pride 

International appears to have the largest number of employees; however, it is difficult to separate 

the number of employees offering workover and well service from those involved in drilling 

activities. Helix Energy Solutions is a foreign-owned company and the lack of information 

regarding its number of employees and revenues means that we do not have a complete picture 

of everyone operating in this subsector. However, the majority of the economic activity in this 

sector appears to be performed by large, publicly held firms that either offer workover services to 

additional locations (i.e., onshore) or offer additional services to the oil and gas industry 

operating in the GOM. 
95

Table 50 

Regional Distribution of Employees and Revenue

Number of Locations 2007 Employees 2007 Revenue

Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent

Louisiana 44 51.16% 3,160 58.88% $400.24 71.86%

Mississippi 1 1.16% 10 0.19% $0.00 0.00%

Texas 41 47.67% 2,197 40.94% $156.77 28.14%

Totals: 86 100.00% 5,367 100.00% $557.01 100.00%

LA- Acadia 1 1.16% 103 1.92% $11.86 2.13%

TX- Brazoria 3 3.49% 150 2.79% $5.76 1.03%

TX- Calhoun 2 2.33% 6 0.11% $0.69 0.12%

LA- Cameron 2 2.33% 101 1.88% $11.62 2.09%

TX- Chambers 1 1.16% 0 0.00% $0.00 0.00%

TX- Dallas 1 1.16% 15 0.28% $1.75 0.31%

TX- Fayette 1 1.16% 10 0.19% $0.56 0.10%

TX- Galveston 2 2.33% 3 0.06% $0.36 0.06%

TX- Gregg 1 1.16% 0 0.00% $0.00 0.00%

TX - Harris 11 12.79% 802 14.94% $21.55 3.87%

TX- Hidalgo 1 1.16% 80 1.49% $0.00 0.00%

LA- Iberia 3 3.49% 50 0.93% $4.41 0.79%

LA- Jefferson 2 2.33% 8 0.15% $0.73 0.13%

TX- Jefferson 1 1.16% 0 0.00% $0.00 0.00%

TX- Jim Wells 2 2.33% 66 1.23% $7.60 1.36%

LA - Lafayette 14 16.28% 637 11.87% $66.24 11.89%

LA- Lafourche 2 2.33% 0 0.00% $0.00 0.00%

TX- Liberty 1 1.16% 30 0.56% $3.45 0.62%

MS- Lowndes 1 1.16% 10 0.19% $0.00 0.00%

TX- Midland 1 1.16% 500 9.32% $57.00 10.23%

TX- Montgomery 2 2.33% 150 2.79% $0.00 0.00%

TX- Nueces 6 6.98% 95 1.77% $10.94 1.96%

LA- Orleans 3 3.49% 71 1.32% $8.17 1.47%

TX- Pecos 1 1.16% 30 0.56% $6.81 1.22%

LA- Plaquemines 2 2.33% 27 0.50% $3.11 0.56%

TX- Smith 1 1.16% 20 0.37% $2.30 0.41%

LA- South Webster 1 1.16% 12 0.22% $1.44 0.26%

LA- St. Landry 1 1.16% 65 1.21% $11.43 2.05%

LA- St. Martin 1 1.16% 50 0.93% $10.28 1.85%

LA- St. Mary 1 1.16% 0 0.00% $0.00 0.00%

LA- Terrebone 10 11.63% 1,856 34.58% $260.64 46.79%

LA- Vermilion 1 1.16% 220 4.10% $25.32 4.55%

TX- Victoria 2 2.33% 100 1.86% $11.51 2.07%

TX- Webb 1 1.16% 100 1.86% $11.50 2.06%

Totals 86 100.00% 5,367 100.00% $557.01 100.00%
96

Table 51 

Summary of GOM Employment in Workover Services by Company

Parent Company

2007 

Employees

Number of 

GOM 

Locations

Number of 

Employees at 

GOM Locations

Percentage of

Employees at GOM 

Locations

BJ Services Co. 16,700 20 839 5.02%

Allis-Chalmers Energy Inc. 3,050 11 319 10.46%

Superior Energy Services Inc. 4,500 11 127 2.82%

Halliburton Co. 51,000 10 701 1.37%

Schlumberger NV 80,000 8 798 1.00%

Expro International Group Ltd. 4,000 5 103 2.58%

Spartan Offshore Drilling LLC 8 4 8 100.00%

W-H Energy Services 2,959 4 280 9.46%

Nabors Industries Ltd 23,965 2 40 0.17%

Pride International Inc. 6,900 2 1,800 26.09%

RPC Incorporated 2,370 2 40 1.69%

Boots & Coots 521 1 2 0.38%

Complete Production Services 7,062 1 60 0.85%

Estis Well Service LLC 40 1 40 100.00%

Helix Energy Solutions Group 3,370 1 0 0.00%

Major Equipment & 

Remediation Services Inc. 50 1 50 100.00%

TETRA Technologies Inc. 2,895 1 150 5.18%

Thru Tubing Systems Inc. 10 1 10 100.00%

Totals 209,400 86 5,367

3.17 DIVING

3.17.1 Companies

Table 52 lists the 37 companies that offer diving services in the GOM. Of these, seven are 

publicly owned. The list contains four foreign-owned firms, one of which is also private, and for 

which no revenue information can be located. With the exceptions of Crowley Maritime 

Corporation and the Switzerland-based Allseas Group, S.A., the private companies are 

substantially smaller than the public firms. The presence of 30 private firms, however, is an 

indication of the competitive nature of the subsector.

3.17.2 Locations

The 37 companies listed in Table 52 have 60 locations that serve the GOM; see Table A-17. The 

diving subsector accounts for 3,567 jobs and $2,072 million in revenues.

Table 53 summarizes the regional distribution of jobs and revenues. An interesting feature of this 

subsector is that 10 percent of the locations and revenues are in Florida and there is a small 

amount of economic activity in Alabama. While the remaining 90 percent of locations and 

employees are split roughly equally between Texas and Louisiana, Texas claims about 82 

percent of the revenues. Most of this income flows to Harris County; Cal Dive International, 

Saipem, Acergy, and nine other companies have locations in Houston. Oceaneering has a 

location in Morgan City, Louisiana, that leads to the 25 percent employment for St. Mary Parish. 
97

Houma, Louisiana, hosts a second Oceaneering location and a Chet Morrison location, resulting 

in the nearly 16 percent of employees seen for Terrebonne Parish.

Table 52 

Companies Offering Diving Services in the Gulf of Mexico

Parent Company

Headquarters 

City

Headquarters 

State

Public/ 

Private

2007 Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Acergy S.A. London

United 

Kingdom Public $2,663.40 6,883

Global Industries Offshore, LLC Houston TX Public $1,071.00 3,009

Helix Energy Solutions Group, 

Inc. Houston TX Public $1,767.40 3,370 

Neptune Marine Services Perth Australia Public AUS $15.50 650

Oceaneering International Inc. Houston TX Public $1,743.00 7,500

Saipem S.p.A. Milan Italy Public €12,011.00 33,373

TETRA Technologies, Inc.

The 

Woodlands TX Public $982.48 2,895

Phoenix International, Inc. Largo MD Private $60.00 250

Allseas Group, S.A.

Chatel St 

Denis Switzerland Private 2,000 

American Inshore Divers Boca Raton FL Private $0.10 10

Anders Construction, Inc Harvey LA Private $0.25 3

Aqueos Corporation Broussard LA Private

Bisso Marine Co. Houston TX Private 400

CA Richards & Associates, Inc. Houston TX Private $0.50 5

Chet Morrison Contractors Houma LA Private $6.00 600

Commercial Diving Services 

Inc. Mobile AL Private $1.00 9

Crowley Maritime Corporation

Pompano 

Beach FL Private $1,955.83 4,074 

Deep Marine Technology, Inc. Houston TX Private $300.00 200

DivCon LLC Morgan City LA Private

Diver Dan Diving Services, Inc. Nederland TX Private

Independent Divers, Inc. New Orleans LA Private $1.44 12

In-Depth Offshore Technologies Baton Rouge LA Private $0.13 2

J&J Diving Corp. Belle Chase LA Private $1.20 40

Legacy Offshore, LLC Broussard LA Private

Lone Star Diving, Inc Texas City TX Private $1.15 25

Louisiana Oilfield Divers, LLC Belle Chasse LA Private $10.00 50

MADCON Corp Pearl River LA Private $3.90 57

RVE Inc. Corpus Christi TX Private $3.00 14

S&J Diving, Inc. Houston TX Private $18.00 80

Saltwater Salvage Freeport TX Private

Seamar Divers, Inc. Stafford TX Private $25.00 200

Seaquest Diving, LLC Houston TX Private $0.10 2

Submersible Systems, Inc. Patterson LA Private $1.30 14

Superior Offshore International Houston TX Private $243.44 550

T & T Marine Salvage, Inc. Galveston TX Private $1.84 22

Tiburon Divers, Inc.

The 

Woodlands TX Private $35.55 232 

Triton Diving Services, LLC Metairie LA Private $8.00 65

Total 66,596
98

Table 53 

Regional Distribution of Employees and Revenue

Number of Locations 2007 Employees 2007 Revenue (millions)

Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent

Alabama 1 1.67% 9 0.25% $1.00 0.05%

Florida 5 8.33% 62 1.74% $194.73 9.40%

Louisiana 28 46.67% 1,890 52.99% $174.46 8.42%

Texas 26 43.33% 1,606 45.02% $1,702.31 82.14%

Totals: 60 100.00% 3,567 100.00% $2,072.50 100.00%

AL-Mobile 1 1.67% 9 0.25% $1.00 0.05%

FL-Bay 1 1.67% 0 0.00% $0.00 0.00%

FL-Broward 1 1.67% 30 0.84% $193.00 9.31%

FL-Miami-Dade 2 3.33% 22 0.62% $1.63 0.08%

FL-Palm Beach 1 1.67% 10 0.28% $0.10 0.00%

LA-East Baton Rouge 1 1.67% 2 0.06% $0.13 0.01%

LA-Iberia 3 5.00% 17 0.48% $1.80 0.09%

LA-Jefferson 5 8.33% 139 3.90% $10.33 0.50%

LA-Lafayette 3 5.00% 76 2.13% $9.08 0.44%

LA-Lafourche 1 1.67% 1 0.03% $0.05 0.00%

LA-Orleans 3 5.00% 12 0.34% $1.44 0.07%

LA-Plaquemines 2 3.33% 90 2.52% $11.20 0.54%

LA-St. Martin 2 3.33% 50 1.40% $3.76 0.18%

LA-St. Mary 4 6.67% 884 24.78% $119.91 5.79%

LA-St. Tammany 1 1.67% 57 1.60% $3.90 0.19%

LA-Tangipahoa 1 1.67% 1 0.03% $0.06 0.00%

LA-Terrebone 2 3.33% 561 15.73% $12.80 0.62%

TX-Brazoria 1 1.67% 0 0.00% $0.00 0.00%

TX-Fort Bend 1 1.67% 65 1.82% $23.40 1.13%

TX-Galveston 3 5.00% 47 1.32% $2.99 0.14%

TX-Harris 14 23.33% 1,394 39.08% $1,644.76 79.36%

TX-Jefferson 3 5.00% 21 0.59% $2.54 0.12%

TX-Johnson 1 1.67% 50 1.40% $11.00 0.53%

TX-Montgomery 1 1.67% 0 0.00% $0.00 0.00%

TX-Nueces 1 1.67% 14 0.39% $3.00 0.14%

TX-San Patricio 1 1.67% 15 0.42% $14.63 0.71%

Totals 60 100.00% 3,567 100.00% $2,072.50 100.00%

Table 54 summarizes the information by the parent company. While Oceaneering International is 

not the largest company in terms of total employees, it is the largest in terms of the number of 

locations serving the GOM with diving activities. About half the companies concentrate on 

offering diving services in the GOM. 
99

Table 54 

Summary of GOM Employment in Diving Services by Company

Parent Company

2007 

Employees

Number of 

GOM 

Locations

Number of 

Employees at GOM 

Locations

Percentage of 

Employees at 

GOM 

Locations

Oceaneering International Inc. 7,500 7 892 11.89%

Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. 3,370 5 121 3.59%

Seamar Divers, Inc. 200 4 88 44.00%

Superior Offshore International 550 3 160 29.09%

Bisso Marine Co. 400 2 390 97.50%

Chet Morrison Contractors 600 2 550 91.67%

DivCon LLC 2 46

Diver Dan Diving Services, Inc. 2 3

Lone Star Diving, Inc 25 2 25 100.00%

Phoenix International, Inc. 250 2 27 10.80%

S&J Diving, Inc. 80 2 80 100.00%

Tiburon Divers, Inc. 232 2 0.00%

Acergy S.A. 6,883 1 150 2.18%

Allseas Group, S.A. 2,000 1 35 1.75%

American Inshore Divers 10 1 10 100.00%

Anders Construction, Inc 3 1 3 100.00%

Aqueos Corporation 1

CA Richards & Associates, Inc. 5 1 5 100.00%

Commercial Diving Services Inc. 9 1 9 100.00%

Crowley Maritime Corporation 4,074 1 30 0.74%

Deep Marine Technology, Inc. 200 1 200 100.00%

Global Industries Offshore, LLC 3,009 1 203 6.75%

Independent Divers, Inc. 12 1 12 100.00%

In-Depth Offshore Technologies 2 1 2 100.00%

J&J Diving Corp. 40 1 40 100.00%

Legacy Offshore, LLC 1

Louisiana Oilfield Divers, LLC 50 1 50 100.00%

MADCON Corp 57 1 57 100.00%

Neptune Marine Services 650 1 50 7.69%

RVE Inc. 14 1 14 100.00%

Saipem S.p.A. 33,373 1 192 0.58%

Saltwater Salvage 1

Seaquest Diving, LLC 2 1 2 100.00%

Submersible Systems, Inc. 14 1 14 100.00%

T & T Marine Salvage, Inc. 22 1 22 100.00%

Tetra Technologies, Inc. 2,895 1 20 0.69%

Triton Diving Services, LLC 65 1 65 100.00%

Totals 66,596 3,567
101

4 INTE GR ATING C ONTR AC T S E R VIC E S INTO MAG-PLAN

Section 2.2 contains a brief description of MAG-PLAN. Section 4 focuses on how the 

information gathered on the oil services contract industry can be incorporated within the MAGPLAN analytical framework. Section 4.1 describes types of costs and disaggregating those costs 

into labor and non-labor components. Section 4.2 illustrates how the approach can be used with 

the G&G contract industry sector.

4.1 METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH

4.1.1 Cost Types

Figure 5 illustrates the lifetime of an oil and gas project with its associated activity functions.27

4.1.1.1 One-Time Costs

The time dimension is shown on the y axis; that is, the beginning operations are at the top of the 

figure while the final stage—platform removal—is at the bottom of the figure. The x axis 

represents two types of costs (one-time and recurring) which should be handled differently in the 

impacts evaluation. 

The left column lists activities with one-time costs. These costs happen in a particular year, 

indicated in the E&D scenario specified by the BOEMRE Resource Evaluation office in charge 

of the relevant OCS region. Most of the costs are costs of exploration, production, and nonproduction wells, associated production structures, onshore and offshore gas processing 

facilities, pipeline construction, and structure removal. Oil spill cleanup costs are not 

construction costs, but they are listed on the left side of Figure 5 because they one-time costs 

incurred only when a spill accidentally occurs. 

Two additional activities are shown in the left column: lease bids and geological and geophysical 

prospecting. Lease bid amounts are included in the scenario definition and in the calculation of 

socioeconomic impacts, but industry expenditures related to bid preparation and submission 

process are not included. In MAG-PLAN’s current configuration, geological and geophysical 

prospecting costs are not included for the Gulf of Mexico region.

4.1.1.2 Recurring Costs

The right column lists recurring costs. For example, after a development well is drilled and goes 

into production, the operating and maintenance costs (O&M) are incurred that year and every 

year thereafter until the well or structure is no longer economically viable. Likewise, O&M costs 

are incurred once a new gas processing facility or pipeline goes into operation. These costs are 

continued until the end the economic life of a well or the analysis period (for other types of 

infrastructure). 

 

27 For reasons of space, some boxes contain more than one activity function and include a footnote identifying the 

different activities. Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 explain why the G&G box is shown before the exploratory drilling box 

in Figure 5.
102

Time Frame

Beginning

Decommissioning

One-Time Costs Recurring Costs

Lease Bid

Geological and

Geophysical

Prospecting

Exploratory Drilling

Non-Production

and

Production Drilling

Structure

Added

Production

Operation and

Maintenance

Oil Spill Cleanup 1 Workovers

(if needed)

Gas Processing

Facility

Construction 2

Gas Processing

Operation and

Maintenance

Pipeline

Construction

Pipeline

Operation and

Maintenance

Structure Removal 3

1: Reaching shore and not reaching shore

2: Onshore and offshore facilities

3: With and without explosives

Figure 5. Activity functions and cost types for an offshore oil and gas project.
103

4.1.2 Disaggregating Activity Functions Into Economic Sectors

Each of the activity functions shown in Figure 5 can be considered as a “shock” to the economic 

region. In MAG-PLAN, the shock is measured as the total cost per unit of activity. Much of 

BOEMRE 2005a (USDOI, BOEMRE 2005a) is devoted to the development of the magnitude of 

the estimated shocks.

The process is illustrated in 

The focus of this project is to disaggregate each of the activity functions 

into the different service industries and goods that make up the activity. That is, the focus is on 

developing the production functions rather than the total or unit cost of the activity.

Figure 6. In the upper left corner, the initial shock is applied to the 

system. The first level of disaggregation is to separate the shock into labor and non-labor costs. 

(The non-labor costs might be goods or services; hence, we do not use the term “capital” costs to 

describe these commodities.) An initial estimate of the labor/non-labor ratio can be calculated 

from a ratio of payroll costs to total receipts reported in the 2002 Economic Census for the 

appropriate NAICS code. 

4.1.2.1 Labor Costs

Labor costs can be divided into wage and benefit components. Within MAG-PLAN, wages are 

allocated to a series of sectors based on the Census Bureau’s Consumer Expenditures. The share 

of labor spending that flows to each economic onshore area will be estimated from the industry 

data for each sector (see stars in Figure 6). The location data reported for each of the oil services 

contract industries in Appendix A provide an estimate of the amount of local labor available for 

these services.28

Figure 6

If labor is imported into the region for the task, then the impact of the associated 

wages is lost to the Gulf economic region. In other words, this portion “leaks” out of the region. 

Depending on the analysis for which MAG-PLAN is used, the leakage is allocated to “Other 

Gulf states, Other U.S. states, and foreign” or any aggregation of these three regions. For reasons 

of legibility, leakages to all other regions are listed as “OUS” in Figure 6. Local wages are spent 

within the Gulf region based on the Personal Consumption Expenditure data developed by the 

U.S. Census Bureau (see the triangles in ).

Benefits, such as health and life insurance, are associated with labor costs but are not included in 

payroll costs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics collects benefits as a percent of total compensation 

data by industry group in its “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation” series and the data 

for the natural resources manufacturing occupational group can be used as an initial estimate for 

this factor. The portion of the shock attributable to benefits costs is allocated to IMPLAN Sector 

428, insurance agencies and brokerages. (IMPLAN sectors are shown in dotted outlines in Figure 

6.)

 

28 Future researchers could use the Appendix A information to estimate onshore allocations based on either 

employment or revenues.
104

1 OUS: Other GOM states, Other U.S. states, and foreign

: Local Knowledge

▲: Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE)

Figure 6. Disaggregation of activity function shock into labor and non-labor components. 

SHOCK

Non-Labor Labor

Geographical

 Distribution

OUS Households

Local

Non-Local

Commodity B

(Service)

Labor

Wages

Benefits

Non-Labor

Local

Non-Local

Insurance

Local

Non-Local

Geographical

 Distribution

OUS

Margin Wholesale

Sector

OUS

Geographical

 Distribution

Commodity X

Wages

Benefits

Geographical

 Distribution

OUS Household 1

Spending

Local

Non-Local

Insurance Local

Non-Local

Geographical

 Distribution

OUS

Commodity A

(Good)

Geographical

 Distribution Local

Non-Local Margin Wholesale

Sector

Geographical

 Distribution

Producer OUS

Commodity C Labor

Non-Labor

Non-Local

Non-Local

OUS

OUS

Producer
105

4.1.2.2 Non-Labor Costs

Non-labor costs might be goods or services. The canonical method of disaggregating a 

commodity is to use the margin data in IMPLAN to separate the commodity into producer, 

transportation, wholesale, and retail margins. Then IMPLAN’s regional purchase coefficients 

(RPCs) are used to allocate the expenditures to the Gulf of Mexico area and OUS. The IMPLAN 

data, however, are based on national accounts. Sections 4.2 through 4.5 illustrate an alternative 

approach to disaggregating activity function data into component parts. 

Figure 6 illustrates the possible use of this approach through the disaggregation of four different 

commodities. In Figure 6, Commodity A is a good, such as well tubulars. If the good is 

manufactured in the Gulf economic region, we assume that local production is used first to 

satisfy local demand and any excess is exported. Similarly, if local demand exceeds local supply, 

then some of the good will be imported. A good is considered an import to the Gulf economic 

region whether it comes from somewhere else in the United States or another country. If we 

cannot develop the data to identify the existence or percent of the commodity manufactured in 

the Gulf of Mexico region, the percent of Commodity A allocated to the IMPLAN sector (such 

as 205, iron, steel pipe and tube from purchased steel29) is based on the IMPLAN RPC. If, 

however, the commodity is manufactured outside the region and is purchased through a dealer in 

the region, the impact is the margin between the producer and purchaser price.30

Commodity B is a service, such as a workover. Note that the series of boxes associated with 

labor costs for Commodity B is the same as above and that the boxes associated with non-labor

costs follow the same pattern as for Commodity A. In other words, the input into Commodity B 

is treated as a shock to the economic subset of goods and services that make up Commodity B. 

The disaggregation of Commodity B begins with the separation of labor and non-labor costs 

which are then subject to the process of sector identification, RPC, and geographic distribution 

described in the preceding paragraphs.

We would use 

the IMPLAN margin data to allocate a portion of the expenditures to the wholesale sector and 

distribute this portion geographically according to the sector profile. The impact of the remaining 

expenditure, the producer price for the commodity imported into the region and transport to the 

region, is lost from the Gulf of Mexico region.

Commodity C is an example of a good or service that is a total import into the GOM. For 

example, the hulls for BP’s Atlantis and Murphy Oil’s Thunder Hawk semi-submersible 

platforms were built in Korea and Singapore, respectively (BP 2006, Offshore-Technology n.d.). 

In this example, hull fabrication results in no economic impact to the onshore Gulf of Mexico 

economic region. However, joining the hull to the topsides is done in a GOM shipyard; this part 

of an activity function for constructing a production structure would have economic effects in the 

onshore regions.

 

29 This report uses the IMPLAN 509-sector numbering scheme that was in effect at the beginning of the project. 

Minnesota IMPLAN Group released the 2007 440-sector numbering scheme during the course of this project.

30 For reasons of space in Figure 6, transportation margins for local and non-local goods as well as retail margins for 

local goods are not shown., 
106

The process continues until all the commodities that form the activity function have been 

identified and disaggregated (see the dotted line leading to Commodity X in Figure 6). 

4.2 GEOPHYSICAL AND GEOLOGICAL PROSPECTING

This section focuses on addressing how the G&G contract service industry might be more 

explicitly incorporated into MAG-PLAN. The sections below discuss considerations for 

recognizing the role of the G&G industry in onshore impacts by defining the industry activity 

cost function, considering the import of services from other regions, scaling the shock, and 

suggesting how it would be incorporated into an E&D scenario. 

4.2.1 Estimating the Cost Function

4.2.1.1 Labor Share

It was not possible to estimate the labor share from the company data collected for Section 3.1. 

The public companies are large and have a multitude of different activities under a single 

corporate umbrella, e.g., Schlumberger. On the other hand, no cost information is available from 

the private companies.

ERG turned to Census data to estimate the labor share for the G&G contract services industry. 

Although many of the companies in Section 3.1 listed their NAICS code as 211xxx (oil and gas 

services), a more accurate NAICS code is 541360 (Geophysical Surveying and Mapping). The 

2007 NAICS definition is:

This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in gathering, 

interpreting, and mapping geophysical data. Establishments in this industry often 

specialize in locating and measuring the extent of subsurface resources, such as 

oil, gas, and minerals, but they may also conduct surveys for engineering 

purposes. Establishments in this industry use a variety of surveying techniques 

depending on the purpose of the survey, including magnetic surveys, gravity 

surveys, seismic surveys, or electrical and electromagnetic surveys. (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2009b)

In 2002, there were 742 establishments in the geophysical surveying and mapping services 

industry with revenues of $1.049 billion and an annual payroll of $0.395 billion (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2005a). This results in a payroll-to-revenues ratio of 37.7 percent. The Census data 

reflect both onshore and offshore operations, as do data for some of the firms in Section 3.1. One 

might argue that the capital expenditures for vessels needed to perform offshore seismic surveys 

might lead to a lower labor ratio. However, the industry also makes large use of human capital. 

For example, data brokers are needed to maintain and process digital libraries, and the most 

important asset for individuals (sole proprietorships) that work in the field is their deep 

knowledge and experience. Thus, having no information that can be used to modify the estimated 

labor percentage, ERG proposes to use 37.7 percent as the labor share for the G&G industry. 

4.2.1.2 Wages and Benefits

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) collects employer costs for employee compensation on a 

quarterly basis. ERG used the December 2008 data for workers in private industry in the 
107

professional and business services industries (that is, equivalent to industries in the two-digit 

NAICS industry 540000 to which G&G services belongs), see USDOL BLS (2008). BLS breaks 

out compensation for this group as:

• 73.2 percent wages and salaries

• 7.1 percent paid leave

• 2.9 percent supplemental pay (e.g., overtime work, shift differentials, and 

bonuses)

• 6.2 percent insurance

• 3.0 percent retirement and savings

• 7.7 percent legally required benefits (such as Social Security, Medicare, 

federal unemployment, state unemployment, and worker’s compensation).31

For this project, ERG considered that paid leave and supplemental pay should be added to wages 

and salaries because the money from the two benefits would be available for a household to 

spend. Thus, ERG proposes the following split of the labor share:

• 83.2 percent are considered pre-tax wages available for spending.

• 16.8 percent are benefits assigned to IMPLAN Sector 428 (insurance agencies 

and brokerages)

4.2.1.3 Wage Distribution

ERG proposes to use the percentage of revenues by county/parish shown in Table 5 on page 35, 

as the geographical wage distribution. G&G services are highly mobile and any company 

operating in the GOM could serve any site in the GOM. 

4.2.1.4 Non-Labor Spending

If the labor share is estimated as 37.7 percent of the shock, the non-labor share will constitute 

62.3 percent of the shock. This 62.3 percent among the input industries using the same pattern 

for non-labor spending in IMPLAN Sector 439 (architectural and engineering services).

ERG recognizes that G&G non-labor spending differs from the rest of the architectural and 

engineering services in the IMPLAN sector. For example, G&G is likely to spend more on air 

and water transportation and equipment than other industries in the sector. ERG examined two 

approaches to address the role of transportation in the G&G sector—location analysis and expert 

judgment. For some of the entries in Table A-1, ERG could identify whether the services offered 

involve air and/or water transportation (e.g., Fugro Airborne Surveys), but the sector also 

includes data processing and data brokering. ERG determined that there is insufficient 

information to develop a weighted average of the acquisition, processing, and analysis subsectors 

Sector 

439 corresponds to NAICS 4-digit code 5413 of which G&G is a part. 

 

31 Data taken directly from USDOL BLS (2008) and may not sum due to rounding.
108

to propose non-labor shares for air and water transportation. For the second approach, we prefer 

to rely on transparent, publicly verifiable estimates rather than substitute our own or our experts’ 

judgment. This is an area that might require further research to resolve if the model results are 

sensitive to these parameters.

4.2.2 Timing and Frequency

G&G activities can occur at many phases in an offshore oil and gas operation—before a lease 

bid, before drilling an exploratory well, or after an exploratory well if data collected while 

drilling the well (e.g., velocity) are used to process the G&G data properly (DeCort 2010). For 

the purpose of including these costs in MAG-PLAN, ERG needs to be able to associate G&G 

expenses with the activities in E&D scenarios. Based on how the publicly available data are 

presented, ERG makes two modeling assumptions--that all G&G costs are associated with 

exploratory wells and the costs are incurred in the year prior to drilling the exploratory well. 

4.2.3 Magnitude of the Shock

The Energy Information Administration collects financial data on major energy producers 

(USDOE, EIA 2008). In completing 

• acquisition of unproved acreage

the Form EIA-28, financial reporting, companies with oil 

and gas activities file a Schedule 5211 that provides expense information by geographic region 

(USDOE, EIA 2009c). In USDOE, EIA (2008) Table T7, exploration costs are subdivided into:

• geological and geophysical

• drilling and equipping 

• other

while development costs are subdivided into: 

• acquisition of proved acreage

• lease equipment

• drilling and equipping

• other

Geological and geophysical expenses are reported only under exploration activities. This 

supports ERG’s decision to assign G&G costs only to exploratory wells.

Table 55 is derived from the Schedule 5211 submissions (USDOE, EIA 2009c). “Other” costs 

include direct overhead costs associated with exploration, carrying costs of undeveloped 

properties (lease rents), test hole contributions, and land development, leasing, and scouting 

(USDOE, EIA 2009d). Because direct overhead costs are included as drilling costs in the Joint 

Association Survey on Drilling Costs (API 2008), we have included them in the calculation.
109

Table 55 

Geological and Geophysical Costs as a Percentage of Exploratory Drilling Costs

Year

Parameter 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Average

Geological and 

Geophysical 

(G&G) $573 $466 $466 $394 $607 $616 $590 $664 

Drilling and 

Equipment $2,004 $2,169 $1,781 $1,804 $1,320 $2,163 $3,402 $2,458

Other $340 $340 $421 $398 $661 $726 $654 $831

G&G as a 

Percentage of 

Drilling Costs 24% 19% 21% 18% 31% 21% 15% 20% 21%

Source: USDOE, EIA 2009c.

From Table 55, we see that G&G costs range from a low of 15 percent of exploration drilling 

costs in 2006 to a high of 31 percent in 2004. The data for 2003 are likely to include the costs for 

Encana’s well in the Beaufort Sea, but this is the only Alaskan well that we could identify during 

the 2000 to 2007 time period (USDOI BOEMRE 2006). However, since the G&G-to-drilling 

cost percentage for 2003 lies within the range shown for the other years, we do not consider the 

inclusion of an Alaskan well to substantially change the average value of 21 percent. 

In other words, the G&G cost per exploratory well could be calculated as 21 percent of the 

drilling cost. This approach has the effect of associating higher G&G costs with more expensive 

wells which is a logical relationship. G&G services are less expensive than drilling an offshore 

well. 

4.2.4 Supply and Demand for Geological and Geophysical Prospecting Services 

in the Offshore Gulf of Mexico

Spending for G&G services will affect the regional economy only if the region has the capacity 

to provide the services. When demand exceeds the regional supply, G&G services will be 

imported from other areas and spending will flow out of the regional economy. The Energy 

Information Administration tracks the maximum number of seismic crews active offshore on a 

monthly basis; see Figure 7. The peak number of crews—19—occurred in early 2001 and 2002. 

The number of crews declined until January 2005 and then rose again until it reached 16 seismic 

crews in February 2008. 
110

Source: USDOE, EIA (2009e).

Figure 7. Monthly peak number of active seismic crews in the

offshore United States, January 2000–August 2008.

An evaluation of G&G capacity in the GOM indicates that there are more than enough crews 

available to meet the likely demand. Fairfield Industries has six vessels in the Gulf of Mexico 

(Fairfield Industries 2009). Fugro N.V. owns 28 vessels and operates an additional 22 vessels 

worldwide (Fugro 2007). On its website, Fugro provides descriptions for 12 of these vessels. 

Three of the 12 (Geodetic Surveyor, Universal Surveyor, and Seis Surveyor) are registered in the 

Gulf of Mexico region and Fugro states that most of the others can be rapidly mobilized 

anywhere in the world. WesternGeco has four seismic vessels of which at least one, Western 

Neptune, has worked in the Gulf of Mexico (Mouawad 2006). With its acquisition of AOA 

Marine Geoscience, WesternGeco also obtained the Geoexplorer (AOA Geophysics 2009). 

CGGVeritas spent $368 million in 2007 acquiring geophysical data. Because most of these data 

were acquired in the Gulf of Mexico, it is likely that some of their 20 vessels are located in the 

region (CGGVeritas 2007). Tesla Offshore operates two vessels year-round in the Gulf of 

Mexico (Tesla Offshore 2009). Marine Surveys, LLC has two vessels based in Louisiana 

(Silvetti 2009). DWS International appears to have at least one vessel (DWS 2009). Other firms 

appear to use long-term charters to collect their data.

In other words, there appears to be a sufficient number of seismic vessels within the region to 

support the peak number of seismic crews. For the purpose of this study, performance of a 

service by a foreign corporate parent is not considered to allocate the spending to a “Rest of the 

World” region if the parent has a location and staff in the GOM region to perform the task. Thus, 

all staff listed in Table A-1 are considered local even if the corporate parent is foreign.

As a simplifying assuming for the purpose of modeling the impact of G&G expenditures within 

MAG-PLAN, ERG proposes that all G&G expenses within MAG-PLAN be allocated within the 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Jan-00Jan-01Jan-02Jan-03Jan-04Jan-05Jan-06Jan-07Jan-08

Date

Number of Seismic Crews
111

Gulf of Mexico economic region for two reasons. First, it appears there is sufficient local supply 

to meet local demand and, second, ERG could not find a basis for prorating the portion of 

revenues that would leave the region.

4.3 EXPLORATORY WELL DRILLING

Sections 4.3 and 4.4 identify publicly available detailed cost data for “typical” offshore wells, 

disassembles them into components, and reconfigures them into IMPLAN sectors. For this 

report, it is the proportion of costs per sector that provides an understanding of the 

interrelationships among the commodities and services. Thus, the cost function can be used to 

scale updated well costs into the appropriate commodities and services. Section 4.3 focuses on 

exploratory wells while Section 4.4 addresses development wells.

4.3.1 Cost Function Description

Schlumberger, under contract to the Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology 

Laboratory, collected Authorization for Expenditure (AFE) data for wells drilled from 

approximately 1999 to 2004 with a true vertical depth of at least 15,000 feet (USDOE NETL 

2005). The data set included 2,363 wells and 140 operators in the U.S. and Canada. Figure 8 is 

taken from USDOE NETL (2005) and indicates that the majority of the sample is located in the 

GOM OCS and Gulf Coast. 

Figure 8. Location of deep wells, 1997–2001. 

Source: USDOE NETL 2005
112

Schlumberger began by examining each AFE form and coding every line item to a set of code 

names developed for the project. The study divided the wells into 13 “scenarios” and developed 

average costs for each cost component within each scenario. The most relevant scenario for the 

exploratory drilling activity function is Scenario 7DE, an offshore GOM directional well with a 

depth of 19,000 feet and a total vertical depth of 18,000 feet.32

Table 56 is the detailed list of average expenditures for Scenario 7DE, taken from USDOE

NETL (2005), Appendix A, as well as the standardized cost category. The term “N/R” appears 

on lines for which data were not reported. The total well cost is approximately $8.8 million. 

Table 56 

Expenditures for Offshore GOM Exploratory Well, 19,000 Feet Depth

Authorization for 

Expenditure Cost Category Detailed Cost

Cement Cement And Services, Cementing Accessories $245,000

Services Cementing Cement And Services, Cementing Accessories $27,900

Services Open Hole Logging Logging, Openhole $92,000

Packer & Downhole Equipment N/R

Production Equipment N/R

 Special Services/Coiled Tubing/Testing/DST & Coring N/R

Drilling Bits Bits, Reamers, And Stabilizers $100,500

Contingencies N/R

Drilling Rig Contract Drilling $3,410,000

Services Directional Survey Directional Drilling Services $12,000

Services Directional Tools Directional Drilling Services $205,500

 Drilling, Construction, & Company Overhead N/R

Drlg Fuel Fuel, Power, Water, Hauling And Disposal $161,200

Rent Elect Line Unit Fuel, Power, Water, Hauling And Disposal $15,500

Trans Fuel Fuel, Power, Water, Hauling And Disposal $72,500

Drlg Water Fuel, Power, Water, Hauling And Disposal $12,400

Miscellaneous Materials & Expenses N/R

Drlg Mob Demob Mobilization / Demobilization $375,000 

Drlg Tools - Stab, Oh, Ur Rental Tools And Equipment $48,300

Rent Drill String Rental Tools And Equipment $13,400

Rent Misc Rental Tools And Equipment $48,300

Trans Air Transportation $99,200

Trans Crewboats Transportation $105,400

Services Docks Trucking & Freight $7,800 

 

32 The reader should be aware that the focus of the USDOE NETL (2005) report is deep wells. That is, a well with a 

total vertical depth of 18,000 feet represents only a small percentage of all wells drilled in the GOM OCS. In 

addition, USDOE NETL (2005) does not provide the water depth in which the well is located. Water depth can have 

a substantial impact on cost because it affects the type of MODU that will be used to drill the well. (See Section 

3.2.1 for a discussion of the different types of MODUs.) However, USDOE NETL (2005) is the only publicly 

available source that ERG identified with detailed cost data; thus the emphasis that Section 4.3 illustrates the 

methodology to develop a cost curve that integrates the contract services within the activity function. 
113

Table 56. Expenditures for Offshore GOM Exploratory Well, 19,000 Feet Depth (continued). 

Authorization for 

Expenditure Cost Category Detailed Cost

Trans Workboats Trucking & Freight $475,200 

Services Trucking Trucking & Freight $75,000 

Services BOP Testing Wellhead Equipment, BOP Testing, Assembly, 

Christmas Tree

$10,600 

Rent BOPs Wellhead Equipment, BOP Testing, Assembly, 

Christmas Tree

$8,700

Wellhead Wellhead Equipment, BOP Testing, Assembly, 

Christmas Tree

$100,000 

Mud Chemicals Drilling And Completion Fluids And Services $486,400

Mud Corrosion Inhibitor Drilling And Completion Fluids And Services $30,000

Rent Mud Equipment Drilling And Completion Fluids And Services $21,600

Loc Contingency Location And Road Building $945,800

Loc Preparation Location And Road Building $17,500

Loc Misc Location And Road Building $5,600

Loc Clean Up Permit/Survey/Damages/Restoration $5,000

Loc Permits Permit/Survey/Damages/Restoration $5,000

Loc Surveys Permit/Survey/Damages/Restoration $40,000

Services Trash Permit/Survey/Damages/Restoration $8,900

Loc Insurance Well Insurance $106,600

Rent Communications Communications, Dims, Computer $25,200

Services Dispatcher Communications, Dims, Computer $28,800

Supr Engineer Company Labor (Time, Exp. & Benefits) $25,000

Supr Consultant Consulting, Contract Labor, And Professional Fees $77,500

Services Misc Consulting, Contract Labor, And Professional Fees $44,500

Services Welding & Labor Consulting, Contract Labor, And Professional Fees $18,000

Services Wellhead Consulting, Contract Labor, And Professional Fees $14,400

Services Mud Logging Consulting, Contract Labor, And Professional Fees $31,100

Services Galley Living Quarters $30,700

Rent Casing Tools Casing Crew, Tongs And Tools, P&A Services $97,500

Casing Equipment Casing Equipment, Float, Liner Pipe, And Hanger $17,000

Pipe Drive Conductor Pipe $45,000

Pipe Conductor Conductor Pipe $70,000

Pipe Intermediate Intermediate Casing $646,200

Production Casing N/R

Pipe Surface Surface Casing $192,500

Tubing N/R

Services Casing Inspection Tubular Testing And Inspection $36,600

Services Drill Pipe Inspec Tubular Testing And Inspection $26,500

Services BHA Inspec Tubular Testing And Inspection $7,100

Completion And Workover Rig N/R

Stimulation N/R

Wireline Services, Logging, Perforating N/R

Total Well Cost $8,827,400

Source: USDOE NETL (2005), Appendix A, Scenario 7DE.
114

Table 57 aggregates the costs into the categories discussed in Sections 3.2 through 3.10. The 

drilling contractor, which includes the drilling rig, accounts for about 43 percent of the overall 

costs. Unexpectedly, insurance is the next largest cost category, accounting for almost 12 percent 

of the overall well costs. This is driven by nearly $1 million in a “location contingency” cost that 

reflects the uncertainties of working in the offshore. Casing materials represent about 11 percent 

of the costs. Transportation costs total about 8.6 percent. (Air and water transportation are 

discussed in Sections 3.13 and 3.14. Accommodations are discussed in Section 3.12.)

Table 57 

Cost Summary by Sector

Cost Summary Cost Percent

Drilling contractor (including mobilization/demobilization) $3,785,000 42.9%

Directional Drilling $217,500 2.5%

Drilling fluids $538,000 6.1%

Drilling tools $210,500 2.4%

Mud logging $31,100 0.4%

Casing-materials $970,700 11.0%

Casing-services $97,500 1.1%

Cementing-materials $245,000 2.8%

Cementing-services $27,900 0.3%

BOPs $119,300 1.4%

Formation Evaluation $92,000 1.0%

Inspection Fees $70,200 0.8%

Insurance $1,052,400 11.9%

Company Labor $25,000 0.3%

Contract Labor (inc. dispatcher) $183,200 2.1%

G&G $40,000 0.5%

Misc. $67,200 0.8%

Fuel $233,700 2.6%

Water $12,400 0.1%

Power $15,500 0.2%

Transportation - air $99,200 1.1%

Transportation - water $588,400 6.7%

Transportation - land $75,000 0.8%

Accommodations $30,700 0.3%

Total $8,827,400

4.3.2 Cost Function Estimation

As can be seen from Table 57, the cost function for the exploratory well drilling activity is a 

composite of commodity and service cost functions for the different sectors. That is, the cost of 

an exploratory well is disaggregated into its constituent goods and services. The rest of this 

section will cover the further disaggregation of each good and service into the local/non-local 

and IMPLAN sectors. Finally, the sectors will be re-aggregated to a single function.

4.3.2.1 Grouping Into Like Services and Commodities

Table 58 groups the line items in Table 56 and Table 57 into services and commodities. The first 

13 entries are considered services, represented by seven NAICS/IMPLAN sectors. Slightly more 
115

than 40 percent of the well cost goes to the drilling contractor (IMPLAN Sector 27, drilling oil 

and gas wells). The services supporting directional drilling, drilling fluids, mud logging, casing, 

cementing, and formation evaluation—representing 11.4 percent of the well costs—are 

combined under IMPLAN Sector 28 (support activities for oil and gas operations). Geophysical 

and geological prospecting and inspection fees fall under IMPLAN Sector 439, architectural and 

engineering services.

Table 58 

Grouping Well Costs Into Services and Commodities

Percent

Cost Summary Individual Aggregate NAICS IMPLAN Sector Name

Drilling contractor 

(including mobilization/

demobilization)

42.9% 42.9% 213111 27 Drilling Oil and Gas Wells

Directional Drillling 2.46% 11.4% 213112 28 Support Activities for Oil and 

Drilling fluids 6.1% Gas Operations

Mud logging 0.4% 

Casing-services 1.1%

Cementing-services 0.3% 

Formation Evaluation 1.0%

G&G 0.5% 1.2% 541300 439 Architectural and Engineering 

Inspection Fees 0.8% Services

Transportation – air 1.1% 1.1% 481000 391 Air Transportation

Transportation - water 6.7% 6.7% 483000 393 Water Transportation

Transportation - land 0.8% 0.8% 484000 394 Truck Transportation

Accommodations 0.3% 0.3% 721A00 480 Other Accommodations

Drilling tools 2.4% 3.7% 333132 261 Oil and Gas Field Equipment 

BOPs 1.4% and Machinery

Casing-materials 11.0% 11.0% 331111 203 Iron and steel mills

Cementing-materials 2.8% 2.8% 327310 191 Cement manufacturing

Fuel 2.6% 2.6% 447000 407 Gasoline Stations

Water 0.1% 0.1% 221300 32 Water, Sewage, and Other 

Systems

Power 0.2% 0.2% 221100 30 Power Generation and Supply

Insurance 11.9% 11.9% 524100 427 Insurance Carriers

Company Labor 0.3% 3.1% Wages (will be divided between 

households and insurance 

carriers)

Contract Labor (inc. 

dispatcher)

2.1%

Misc 0.8% 

Total 100.0%

The next seven items are commodities purchased and consumed during the activity. These 

include drill bits and other drilling tools, BOPs, steel pipe for casing, cement for sealing the 

borehole, and utilities (electric, water, and fuel). Steel casing and pipes are called oil country 
116

tubular goods (OCTG) and are produced by a limited number of companies located in the United 

States.33

Insurance for offshore operators is likely to be handled by carriers that specialize in evaluating 

the risks of such activities. Thus, the nearly 12 percent of the cost represented by insurance is 

allocated to IMPLAN Sector 427 (insurance carriers). There is a line entry for the “company 

man” who supervises operations, as well as another entry for other types of contract labor. These 

are combined with the remaining miscellaneous expenses and treated as labor.

These are assigned to the sectors that produce them.

4.3.3 Cost Function Components

4.3.3.1 Labor Share

Table 59 illustrates the methods and data used to derive the preliminary estimate of the labor 

share. Beginning at the left margin, the columns list the sector name, NAICS code, and the cost 

percentage from Table 58. The data in the next two columns are taken from the 2002 Census and 

they are the revenues and payroll by NAICS code. The ratio of the two is the preliminary 

estimate of the labor share for services. These range from a low of 13.7 percent for water 

transportation to a high of 42.0 percent for architectural and engineering services. Note that the 

labor share now reflects all architectural and engineering services (NAICS 514300) while the 

geophysical and geological prospecting cost function discussed in Section 4.2 is restricted to 

NAICS 514360. No labor percentage is assigned to the commodity costs and 100 percent is 

assigned to the company and contract labor line items in the AFE listing.

4.3.3.2 Wages and Benefits

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) collects employer costs for employee compensation on a 

quarterly basis. ERG used the detailed December 2008 data for workers in private industry 

(USDOL BLS 2008). Labor is considered as the sum of wages, salaries, paid leave, and 

supplemental pay because this money would be available for a household to spend. The 

correspondence between the industry sectors and the BLS tables used for the data is:

• Drilling, support services to oil and gas operations, and wages: Table 1

• Architectural and engineering services: Table 10

• Transportation (air, water, truck): Table 4

• Other accommodations: Table 14

• Oil and gas field equipment and machinery: Table 2

The final labor share is calculated as:

Final Labor Share (%) = Cost (%) × Labor Share (%) × Household (%)

When summed, these result in a weighted average estimate of the household income taken home 

from exploratory drilling operations. In Table 59, for every dollar spent in an exploratory drilling 

 

33 U.S. Steel, Maverick Tube Corporation, Evraz Rocky Mountain Steel Corporation, IPSCO, and Wheatland Tube 

(ITA 2009).
11

7

Table 59 

Derivation of Labor Share for Exploratory Drilling

Cost

Census Data 

($Million) BLS Final

Labor

Share

Final

Insurance

Share

Percent to 

IMPLAN 

Sector Name NAICS (Percent) Revenues Payroll Sector

Labor 

Share Household Insurance

Drilling Oil and Gas Wells 213111 42.88% $9,069 $2,490 27.5% 74.5% 25.5% 8.77% 3.00% 31.11%

Support Activities for Oil and Gas 

Operations

213112

11.37% $11,543 $3,847 33.3% 74.5% 25.5% 2.82% 0.97% 7.58%

Architectural and Engineering 

Services

541300

1.25% $161,835 $68,015 42.0% 83.2% 16.8% 0.44% 0.09% 0.72% 

Air Transportation 481000 1.12% $19,735 $3,805 19.3% 79.6% 20.4% 0.17% 0.04% 0.91%

Water Transportation 483000 6.67% $23,331 $3,194 13.7% 79.6% 20.4% 0.73% 0.19% 5.75%

Truck Transportation 484000 0.85% $164,219 $47,750 29.1% 79.6% 20.4% 0.20% 0.05% 0.60%

Other Accommodations 721A00 0.35% $128,098 $34,955 27.3% 83.3% 16.7% 0.08% 0.02% 0.25%

Oil and Gas Field Equipment and 

Machinery

333132

3.74% $5,579 $1,313 23.5% 77.9% 22.1% 0.68% 0.19% 2.86%

Iron and steel mills 331111 11.00% 11.00%

Cement manufacturing 327310 2.78% 2.78%

Gasoline Stations 447000 2.65% 2.65%

Water, Sewage, and Other Systems 221300 0.14% 0.14%

Power Generation and Supply 221100 0.18% 0.18%

Insurance Carriers 524100 11.92% 11.92%

Wages 3.12% 100.0% 74.5% 25.5% 2.32% 0.80%

Totals 100.00% 16.21% 5.34% 78.44%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2005a through 2005e) and U.S. DOL BLS (2008).
118

activity, 16.21 cents go to households, 5.34 cents go to insurance agencies and brokerages 

(IMPLAN Sector 428),34

4.3.3.3 Regional Distribution of Costs

and 78.44 cents are distributed among the 14 other IMPLAN sectors

The regional distribution of exploratory drilling costs appears to be more appropriately 

represented by two distributions. Beyond a certain water depth, a drill ship is necessary for 

exploratory drilling. If a drill ship is used, it is possible that a larger percent the wages, 

insurance, and non-labor expenses for NAICS 213111 (drilling rigs), NAICS 213112 (support 

services), and NAICS 721A00 (accommodations) will go outside the region. The vessels listed in 

Table 3 have quarters for 100 to 200 people and bring all necessary materials with them to the 

remote drilling site (Offshore Magazine 2008). If other types of MODUs can perform the 

drilling, the drilling is more likely to be performed with local companies. When local rigs drill 

the well, the regional distributions in this report can be used to allocate the dollars spent in the 

GOM to onshore areas.

4.4 DEVELOPMENT WELL DRILLING

4.4.1 Cost Function Description

ERG uses the same data source—(USDOE NETL 2005)—for development well drilling as for 

exploratory wells. The most relevant scenario in USDOE NETL (2005) for the productive 

drilling activity function is Scenario 7DD, an offshore GOM directional well with a depth of 

17,000 feet and a total vertical depth of 15,000 feet.35

Table 61 aggregates the costs into the categories discussed in Sections 3.2 through 3.14. The 

drilling contractor (including the drilling rig) accounts for about 35 percent of the overall costs. 

Casing materials represent about 10 percent. Tubulars and drilling tools account for about 4 

percent each. Transportation costs—air, water, and land—total about 9.3 percent. 

Table 60 is the detailed list of average 

expenditures for Scenario 7DD, taken from USDOE NETL (2005), Appendices B and C. The 

total well cost is approximately $4.1 million. 

 

34 It is more likely for employee benefits to go through an insurance agency while insurance for the exploratory 

drilling operation goes through an insurance carrier.

35 The individual cost items are listed in USDOE NETL (2005), Appendix B. However, the sum of the expenditures 

listed for Scenario 7DD in Appendix B is double the total listed in Appendix C for the same scenario. One possible 

interpretation is that the AFE data describe two completions or two directional wells branching off a single vertical 

borehole. The basis for the interpretation is two entries for each of tangible-drilling wellhead, tangible-completion 

wellhead, wellhead services, and other items. At times, the two entries have identical costs, and at other times the 

costs differ. In this report, ERG uses the cost presented in Appendix C because the values are those discussed in the 

remainder of the report.
119

Table 60 

Expenditures for Offshore GOM Development Well, 15,000 Feet Depth 

Authorization for Expenditures 

(AFE) Cost Category

Detailed 

Cost

Cement Cement And Services, Cementing Accessories $103,000

Services Cementing Cement And Services, Cementing Accessories $18,950

Services Open Hole Logging Logging, Openhole $63,450

Packer & Downhole Equipment $17,500

Production Equipment $20,000

Drilling Bits Bits, Reamers, And Stabilizers $56,400

Contingencies $371,350

Drilling Rig Contract Drilling $924,750

Services Directional Survey Directional Drilling Services $2,500

Services Directional Tools Directional Drilling Services $124,300

Drilling, Construction, & Company Overhead $22,000

Drilling Fuel Fuel, Power, Water, Hauling And Disposal $59,200

Rent Elect Line Unit Fuel, Power, Water, Hauling And Disposal $6,350

Trans Fuel Fuel, Power, Water, Hauling And Disposal $30,200

Drilling Water Fuel, Power, Water, Hauling And Disposal $4,300

Drilling Mob Demob Mobilization / Demobilization $90,000

Drilling Tools - Stab, Oh, Ur Rental Tools And Equipment $8,900

Rent Drill String Rental Tools And Equipment $64,900

Services-Fishing Services-Fishing $1,250

Rent Misc Rental Tools And Equipment $15,750

Trans Air Transportation $37,300

Trans Crewboats Transportation $87,650

Services Docks Trucking & Freight $16,650

Trans Workboats Trucking & Freight $205,400

Services Trucking Trucking & Freight $34,250

Services Bop Testing Wellhead Equipment, Bop Testing, Assembly, Christmas Tree $15,800

Rent Bops Wellhead Equipment, Bop Testing, Assembly, Christmas Tree $10,400

Wellhead Wellhead Equipment, Bop Testing, Assembly, Christmas Tree $81,000

Mud Chemicals Drilling And Completion Fluids And Services $423,950

Mud Corrosion Inhibitor Drilling And Completion Fluids And Services $7,500

Rent Mud Equipment Drilling And Completion Fluids And Services $16,200

Loc Contingency Location And Road Building

Loc Preparation Location And Road Building $41,750

Loc Misc Location And Road Building $1,800

Loc Clean Up Permit/Survey/Damages/Restoration $7,500

Loc Permits Permit/Survey/Damages/Restoration $12,250

Loc Surveys Permit/Survey/Damages/Restoration 

Services Trash Permit/Survey/Damages/Restoration $3,800

Loc Insurance Well Insurance $51,300

Rent Communications Communications, Dims, Computer $22,650

Services Dispatcher Communications, Dims, Computer $20,000

Supervisor-Engineer Company Labor (Time, Exp. & Benefits) $11,600

Supervisor-Consultant Consulting, Contract Labor, And Professional Fees $57,300

Services Misc Consulting, Contract Labor, And Professional Fees $33,500

Services Welding & Labor Consulting, Contract Labor, And Professional Fees $14,500

Services Mud Logging Consulting, Contract Labor, And Professional Fees $19,100

Services Galley Living Quarters $21,150
120

Table 60. Expenditures for Offshore GOM Development Well, 15,000 Feet Depth (continued). 

Authorization for Expenditures 

(AFE) Cost Category

Detailed 

Cost

Services Casing Casing Equipment, Float, Liner Pipe, And Hanger $2,400

Rent Casing Tools Casing Crew, Tongs And Tools, P&A Services $55,250

Casing Equipment Casing Equipment, Float, Liner Pipe, And Hanger $55,200

Pipe Drive Conductor Pipe $43,950

Pipe Conductor Conductor Pipe $120,400

Pipe Intermediate Intermediate Casing $158,950

Pipe Surface Surface Casing $41,050

Tubing $161,850

Services Casing Inspection Tubular Testing And Inspection $2,750

Services Drill Pipe Inspec Tubular Testing And Inspection $26,300

Services BHA Inspec Tubular Testing And Inspection $31,300

Stimulation $40,000

Wireline Services, Logging, Perforating $85,000

Total $4,083,750

Source: USDOE NETL (2005), Appendices B and C, Scenario 7DD.

Table 61 

Cost Summary by Sector

Cost Summary Cost Percent

Drilling contractor (including mobilization/demobilization, and contingencies) $1,408,100 34.5%

Directional drilling services $126,800 3.1%

Drilling fluids $447,650 11.0%

Drilling tools $145,950 3.6%

Mud logging $19,100 0.5%

Casing-materials $419,550 10.3%

Casing-services $57,650 1.4%

Cementing-materials $103,000 2.5%

Cementing-services $18,950 0.5%

BOPs/Wellheads $91,400 2.2%

Fishing – services $1,250 0.0%

Formation Evaluation $100,950 2.5%

Testing and Inspection Fees $76,150 1.9%

Well completion-services $125,000 3.1%

Insurance $51,300 1.3%

Company Labor $11,600 0.3%

Contract Labor (inc. dispatcher) $125,300 3.1%

Tubing $161,850 4.0%

Fuel $89,400 2.2%

Water $4,300 0.1%

Power $6,350 0.2%

Transportation – air $37,300 0.9%

Transportation - water $309,700 7.6%

Transportation – land $34,250 0.8%

Accommodations $21,150 0.5%

Misc. $89,750 2.2%

Total $4,083,750 100.0%
121

4.4.2 Cost Function Estimation

As Table 61 shows, the cost function for the development well drilling activity is a composite of 

commodity and service cost functions for the different sectors. That is, the cost of a development 

well is disaggregated into its constituent goods and services. The rest of this section will cover 

the further disaggregation of each good and service into the local/non-local and IMPLAN 

sectors. Finally, the sectors will be re-aggregated to a single function.

Table 62 groups the line items in Table 60 and Table 61 like services and commodities. The first 

13 entries are considered services, represented by seven NAICS/IMPLAN sectors. The support 

services—directional drilling, drilling fluids, mud logging, casing, cementing, fishing, and 

formation evaluation, representing 22 percent of the well costs—are combined under IMPLAN 

Sector 28 (support activities for oil and gas operations). Inspection fees fall under the general 

category of architectural and engineering services (IMPLAN Sector 439). Various forms of 

transportation and accommodation are listed with their associated IMPLAN sectors.

The next eight items are commodities purchased and consumed during the activity. These 

include drill bits and other drilling tools, BOPs, cement for sealing the borehole, and utilities 

(electric, water, and fuel).The AFE detailed cost list for the development well makes a 

distinction between pipes/casing and tubing. As mentioned for the exploratory drilling activity 

function, steel casing pipes are called oil country tubular goods (OCTG) and are produced by a 

limited number of companies located in the United States. ERG thus assigned casing pipe to the 

iron and steel manufacturing sector (IMPLAN Sector 203). Because the model well is a 

directional well, ERG assumes that the materiel listed as tubing is likely to be coiled tubing. This 

is a specialized product that needs further manufacture after the steel mill. Thus, ERG assigned 

this cost to IMPLAN Sector 261 (oil and gas field equipment and machinery).

Table 63 is a comparison of the cost functions for exploratory and development wells based on 

the USDOE NETL (2005). The most striking change is the reduction in insurance costs from 

11.9 percent of the total well cost for an exploratory well to 1.3 percent for a development well. 

This is due to a $1 million location contingency cost for the exploratory well compared to $0.1 

million for a development well. This is, perhaps, a reflection of the uncertainties of exploratory 

drilling in the offshore from a MODU compared to drilling development wells from an installed 

structure.

The likely difference between the costs of drilling from a MODU and drilling from a platform or 

other installed structure can be seen in the relative percent of the well cost assigned to the 

contract drilling operations themselves. In the exploratory well, IMPLAN Sector 27 accounts for 

43 percent of the total costs, compared with 35 percent of the total costs for a development well. 

The percentage of the costs associated with support activities increases from about 11 percent for 

an exploratory well to 22 percent for a development well. This is consistent with the need for 

additional services to run in the set of production tubulars, perform final cementing, install the 

wellhead, perforate, swab, and possibly acidize.
122

Table 62 

Grouping Well Costs Into Services and Commodities

Percent

Cost Summary Individual Aggregate NAICS IMPLAN Sector Name

Drilling contractor (including 

mobilization/demobilization) 34.5% 34.5% 213111 27 

Drilling Oil and 

Gas Wells

Directional drilling services 3.1%

22.0% 213112 28

Support Activities 

for Oil and Gas 

Operations

Drilling fluids 11.0%

Mud logging 0.5%

Casing-services 1.4%

Cementing-services 0.5%

Fishing - services 0.0%

Well completion - services 3.1%

Formation Evaluation 2.5%

Inspection Fees 1.9% 1.9% 541300 439 

Architectural and 

Engineering 

Services

Transportation - air 0.9% 0.9% 481000 391 Air Transportation

Transportation - water 7.6% 7.6% 483000 393 

Water 

Transportation

Transportation - land 0.8% 0.8% 484000 394

Truck 

Transportation

Accommodations 0.5% 0.5% 721A00 480 

Other 

Accommodations

Drilling tools 3.6%

9.8% 333132 261 

Oil and Gas Field 

Equipment and 

Machinery

Tubing 4.0%

BOPs/Wellheads 2.2%

Casing-materials 10.3% 10.3% 331111 203 Iron and steel mills

Cementing-materials 2.5% 2.5% 327310 191

Cement 

manufacturing

Fuel 2.2% 2.2% 447000 407 Gasoline Stations

Water 0.1% 0.1% 221300 32 

Water, Sewage, 

and Other Systems

Power 0.2% 0.2% 221100 30

Power Generation 

and Supply

Insurance 1.3% 1.3% 524100 427 Insurance Carriers

Company Labor 0.3%

5.6% 

Wages (will be 

divided between 

households and 

insurance carriers)

Contract Labor (inc. 

dispatcher) 3.1% 

Misc 2.2%
123

Table 63 

Comparison of Cost Functions for Exploratory and Development Wells

Percentage

NAICS IMPLAN Sector Name Exploratory Development

213111 27 Drilling Oil and Gas Wells 42.9% 34.5%

213112 28 Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations 11.4% 22.0%

541300 439 Architectural and Engineering Services 1.2% 1.9%

481000 391 Air Transportation 1.1% 0.9%

483000 393 Water Transportation 6.7% 7.6%

484000 394 Truck Transportation 0.8% 0.8%

721A00 480 Other Accommodations 0.3% 0.5%

333132 261 Oil and Gas Field Equipment and Machinery 3.7% 9.8%

331111 203 Iron and steel mills 11.0% 10.3%

327310 191 Cement manufacturing 2.8% 2.5%

447000 407 Gasoline Stations 2.6% 2.2%

221300 32 Water, Sewage, and Other Systems 0.1% 0.1%

221100 30 Power Generation and Supply 0.2% 0.2%

524100 427 Insurance Carriers 11.9% 1.3%

Wages 3.1% 5.6%

Totals 100.0% 100.0%

The production tubing is assigned to IMPLAN Sector 261 (oil and gas field equipment and 

machinery). Unless an exploratory well is put into production,36

The model exploratory well is 19,000 feet in depth, while the development well is 17,000 feet in 

depth. This is consistent with the slightly higher percentages for pipe, cement, and fuel costs in 

the exploratory well than the development well. But the differences are very slight (no more than 

0.3 percent).

production tubing is not 

installed. Thus the cost percentage for this sector is 3.7 percent for an exploratory well and 9.8 

percent for a development well.

4.4.3 Cost Function Components

ERG uses the same methodology to derive the preliminary estimate of the labor share for the 

development well as for the exploratory well. Table 64 repeats the data and calculations 

presented in Table 59, but with the cost percentage profile for the development well. For every 

dollar spent in drilling an offshore development well, 20.37 cents go to households, 6.66 cents go 

to insurance agencies and brokerages, and 72.98 cents are distributed among 14 other IMPLAN 

sectors.

 

36 Such a well would appear in the BOEMRE database as a single-slot structure; many such wells are not listed as 

having production equipment. These are more likely to be older structures in shallow water.
124 

Table 64 

Derivation of Labor Share for Development Drilling

Final

Household

Share

Final

Insurance

Share

Percent 

to 

IMPLAN 

Sector

Census Data ($Million) Labor BLS

Sector Name NAICS Percent Revenues Payroll Share Household Insurance

Drilling Oil and Gas Wells 213111 34.5% $9,069 $2,490 27.5% 74.5% 25.5% 7.05% 2.41% 25.01%

Support Activities for Oil and Gas 

Operations 213112 22.0% $11,543 $3,847 33.3% 74.5% 25.5% 5.46% 1.87% 14.65% 

Architectural and Engineering 

Services 541300 1.9% $161,835 $68,015 42.0% 83.2% 16.8% 0.65% 0.13% 1.08%

Air Transportation 481000 0.9% $19,735 $3,805 19.3% 79.6% 20.4% 0.14% 0.04% 0.74%

Water Transportation 483000 7.6% $23,331 $3,194 13.7% 79.6% 20.4% 0.83% 0.21% 6.55%

Truck Transportation 484000 0.8% $164,219 $47,750 29.1% 79.6% 20.4% 0.19% 0.05% 0.59%

Other Accommodations 721A00 0.5% $128,098 $34,955 27.3% 83.3% 16.7% 0.12% 0.02% 0.38%

Oil and Gas Field Equipment and 

Machinery 333132 9.8% $5,579 $1,313 23.5% 77.9% 22.1% 1.79% 0.51% 7.47% 

Iron and steel mills 331111 10.3% 10.27%

Cement manufacturing 327310 2.5% 2.52%

Gasoline Stations 447000 2.2% 2.19%

Water, Sewage, and Other Systems 221300 0.1% 0.11%

Power Generation and Supply 221100 0.2% 0.16%

Insurance Carriers 524100 1.3% 1.26%

Wages 5.6% 100.0% 74.5% 25.5% 4.13% 1.42%

Totals 100.00% 20.37% 6.66% 72.98%

Sources: US Census Bureau (2005a through 2005e) and USDOL BLS (2008).
125

4.5 PRODUCTION AND OPERATIONS

4.5.1 Cost Function Description

ERG uses data published by EIA for annual operating costs for offshore oil and gas platforms in 

the GOM. The most recent data available are for 2006 (USDOE, EIA 2007). Table 65 lists the 

cost components tracked by EIA for onshore and offshore oil and gas operations as well as 

coalbed methane projects. One item that does not seem to be tracked is diving, unless it is 

included as part of “oilfield maintenance - marine.”

Table 65 

Items Tracked for Oil, Gas, or Coal Bed Natural Gas Lease Equipment and Operating Costs

Cost Item

Automobile costs Oil transfer pumps

Communications costs - land Oilfield chemicals

Electric lease power Oilfield maintenance - marine

Electric motors and controllers Packers

Electric labor - field Perforating

Electric materials - field Pipe coating

Fences Plastic tanks

Field structures - small Pumping engines- gas

Fishing tools Pumping motors - electric

Miscellaneous fittings Pumping unit bases

Gas compressors Pumping units

Gas lift equipment Slick line work - offshore

Gas sales meters Speciality tubing

Gross national product deflator Submersible pumps

Helicopter service Submersible hydraulic pumps

Hot oil service Sucker rods

Insulation Tubular goods - lease

Insurance - offshore Tublar goods - well

Labor statistics - oil field Tugs and barges

Labor - clerical Valves, pumps, misc. - land

Labor - supervisory Water filter cases

Labor - technical Water filters

Large engine for hydraulic pumping Water injection pumps

Lease processing and storage equipment Well costs - secondary recovery

Lubricants Well servicing - land

Marine food services Well servicing - offshore

Natural gas prices Wellheads

Oil sales meters Work boats

Source: USDOE, EIA (2007).

Table 66 presents the 2006 annual costs for a 12-slot platform in 100-foot and 300-foot water 

depth and for an 18-slot platform in water depths of 100, 300, and 600 feet. EIA does not present 

costs for depths beyond 600 feet, which will clearly hinder future evaluation efforts in the GOM. 

However, the approach presented here for mapping the cost components for operating costs to 

IMPLAN sectors is transferable to other data sources.
126

The top part of Table 66 shows the 2006 annual O&M costs as reported in USDOE, EIA (2007). 

The bottom part of the table shows the percentage of the annual O&M cost each component 

forms. Immediately noticeable is that nearly two-thirds of the annual O&M cost is due to two 

components: labor transportation and workover costs. Each accounts for between 30 percent and

38 percent of the annual costs. 

Table 66 

2006 Annual Operating Costs for Gulf of Mexico Offshore Platforms

Number of Wellslots

12 18

Water Depth (ft) Water Depth (ft)

Component 100 300 100 300 600

COST

Labor $1,062,700 $1,062,700 $1,171,300 $1,171,300 $1,171,300

Supervision $159,400 $159,400 $175,700 $175,700 $175,700

Payroll overhead $488,800 $488,800 $538,800 $538,800 $538,800

Food expense $95,000 $95,000 $108,500 $108,500 $108,500

Labor transportation $3,472,948 $3,560,200 $3,472,948 $3,560,200 $3,590,364

Surface equipment $176,700 $176,700 $176,700 $176,700 $201,300

Operating supplies $35,300 $35,300 $35,300 $35,300 $40,300

Workover $2,832,800 $2,974,800 $4,215,800 $4,428,600 $4,557,600

Communications $57,800 $59,000 $77,000 $77,800 $78,200

Administrative $509,900 $509,900 $553,300 $553,300 $565,200

Insurance $445,800 $502,500 $654,000 $697,700 $1,121,500

Totals $9,337,148 $9,624,300 $11,179,348 $11,523,900 $12,148,800

PERCENT

Labor 11% 11% 10% 10% 10%

Supervision 2% 2% 2% 2% 1%

Payroll overhead 5% 5% 5% 5% 4%

Food expense 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Labor transportation 37% 37% 31% 31% 30%

Surface equipment 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

Operating supplies 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Workover 30% 31% 38% 38% 38%

Communications 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Administrative 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Insurance 5% 5% 6% 6% 9%

Totals 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Source: USDOE, EIA 2007.

A flow of cost relationships can be traced through Table 66. It costs only 10 percent more labor 

(and supervisory) effort to operate 50 percent more wells. There are small differences in labor 

transportation costs depending on whether the platform is located in 100-, 300-, or 600-foot 

water depth, but it costs no more to transport the crew for an 18-well platform than for a 12-well 

platform. Thus, labor transportation is 37 percent of total operating costs for a 12-well platform 
127

while it is about 30 percent of operating costs for an 18-well platform. Workover costs are about 

50 percent higher for the 18-well platform, as anticipated.

In a pattern seen for exploratory wells, insurance ranges from 5 percent to 9 percent of total 

operating costs. 

4.5.2 Cost Function Estimation

Table 67 groups the line items in Table 66 into like components, and items are ordered by 

decreasing percentage of total costs. Labor transportation forms between 30 percent and 37 

percent of total costs. Because we do not know the method of transportation, we split the costs 

equally between air and water transportation. 

Workover services are the next largest contributor to total cost and are assigned to IMPLAN 

Sector 28 (support activities for oil and gas operations). Labor, supervision, and administrative 

costs are assumed to be wages; these form between 16 percent and 18 percent of total costs. 

Payroll overhead is already a separate line item in the EIA data and is assigned to the IMPLAN 

Sector 427 (insurance carriers). Insurance costs account for between 10 percent and 14 percent of 

total costs.

Table 67 

Grouping Operating Costs Into IMPLAN Sectors

Individual Percents

Number of Well Slots

Aggregate Percents

Number of Well 

Slots

Percent 12 18 12 18 NAICS IMPLAN Sector Name

Labor 

Transportation 37% 30% 

18% 15% 481000 391 Air Transportation

18% 15% 483000 393 

Water 

Transportation

Support Activities 

for Oil and Gas 

Workover 31% 38% 31% 38% 213112 28 Operations

Labor 11% 10%

Supervision 2% 1%

Administrative 5% 5% 18% 16% 494 Households

Payroll 

Overhead 5% 4% 

Insurance 5% 9% 10% 14% 524100 427 Insurance Carriers

Food Services and 

Food Expense 1% 1% 1% 1% 722000 481 Drinking Places

Surface 

Equipment 1.8% 1.7% Oil and Gas Field 

Equipment and 

Machinery

Operating 

Supplies 0.4% 0.3% 2.2% 2.0% 333132 261 

Communications 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 517300 422 Telecommunications

 Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
128

ERG verified that food expense covers only food expense and not transport to the platform. The 

transportation cost for food and supplies is included in the labor transportation category (Funk, 

personal communication 2009; Thibodeaux, personal communication 2009b). Surface equipment 

and operating supplies are miscellaneous categories that do not exceed 2 percent of total costs in 

the aggregate. These are assigned to the IMPLAN sector for its largest component—oil and gas 

field equipment and machinery. Less than 1 percent of the operating cost is assigned to 

telecommunications (IMPLAN Sector 422).

4.5.3 Cost Function Components

Table 68 contains the data and calculations for estimating the labor share for the O&M activity 

function for the 12-slot and 18-slot platforms. New industries that need to be added are NAICS 

722310 (food service contractors)37

There are slight differences for the 12-slot and 18-slot structures. For every dollar spent in annual 

O&M: 

and NAICS 517300 (telecommunications). The ratio of 

payroll to revenues provides the estimated labor share (U.S. Census Bureau 2005e and 2005f). 

Paid leave and supplemental pay are added to wages and salaries to estimate the final household 

and insurance share (USDOL BLS 2008).

• 31.3 cents go to households (12-well)

29.6 cents go to households (18-well)

• 4.1 cents go to insurance agencies (12-well)

4.4 cents go to insurance agencies (18-well)

• 64.7 cents are distributed among other IMPLAN sectors (12-well)

66.0 cents are distributed among other IMPLAN sectors (18-well)

 

37 NAICS 722320 (caterers) describes the industry that prepares food for single events while NAICS 722310 (food 

service contractors) provides prepares food for multiple meals during a set contractual period (U.S. Census Bureau 

2009a). 
129 

Table 68 

Derivation of Labor Share for O&M Activity Function

Final Final Percent to 

Census Data ($Million) Labor BLS Household Insurance IMPLAN 

Sector Name NAICS Percent Revenues Payroll Share Household Insurance Share Share Sector

For 12-slot Platform

Air Transportation 481000 18.5% $19,735 $3,805 19.3% 79.6% 20.4% 2.84% 0.73% 14.93%

Water Transportation 483000 18.5% $23,331 $3,194 13.7% 79.6% 20.4% 2.02% 0.52% 15.96%

Support Activities for Oil and 

Gas Operations 213112 30.9% $11,543 $3,847 33.3% 74.5% 25.5% 7.67% 2.63% 20.61% 

Oil and Gas Field Equipment 

and Machinery 333132 2.2% $5,579 $1,313 23.5% 77.9% 22.1% 0.40% 0.11% 1.68%

Telecommunications 517300 0.6% $9,717 $1,397 14.4% 80.6% 19.4% 0.07% 0.02% 0.52%

Food Services 722310 1% $20,859 $6,096 29.2% 83.3% 16.7% 0.24% 0.05% 0.70%

Insurance Carriers 524100 10.3% 10.30%

Wages 18.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 18.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Total 100.00% 31.24% 4.05% 64.71%

For 18-slot Platform

Air Transportation 481000 14.8% $19,735 $3,805 19.3% 79.6% 20.4% 2.27% 0.58% 11.93%

Water Transportation 483000 14.8% $23,331 $3,194 13.7% 79.6% 20.4% 1.61% 0.41% 12.75%

Support Activities for Oil and 

Gas Operations 213112 37.5% $11,543 $3,847 33.3% 74.5% 25.5% 9.31% 3.19% 25.01% 

Oil and Gas Field Equipment 

and Machinery 333132 2.0% $5,579 $1,313 23.5% 77.9% 22.1% 0.36% 0.10% 1.52%

Telecommunications 517300 0.6% $9,717 $1,397 14.4% 80.6% 19.4% 0.07% 0.02% 0.55%

Food Services 722310 1% $20,859 $6,096 29.2% 83.3% 16.7% 0.22% 0.04% 0.63%

Insurance Carriers 524100 13.7% 13.67%

Wages 15.7% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 15.74% 0.00% 0.00%

Total 100.00% 29.59% 4.35% 66.06%

Source: USDOL BLS 2008; U.S. Census Bureau 2005a through 2005f.
131

5 S UMMAR Y AND OB S E R VATIONS

The goal of this study is a better understanding of the oil services contract industry and the roles 

played by the different sectors in the Gulf of Mexico. ERG identified 17 oil service industry 

sectors associated with searching for offshore oil and gas reservoirs, exploratory drilling, 

development drilling, and annual production. These are:

• Geological and geophysical prospecting (G&G)

• Contract drilling

• Drilling fluid supplies

• Drilling tools and supplies

• Mud logging

• Measurement while drilling (MWD)

• Cementing

• Formation evaluation

• Completion

• Fishing (retrieval of lost or broken equipment from a borehole)

• Wellhead equipment

• Accommodations

• Air transport

• Water transport

• Catering

• Workovers

• Diving support

ERG identified more than 1,140 locations in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and 

Florida that offer these services to the offshore oil and gas industry in the Gulf of Mexico. In 

three of four cases, ERG could identify either the 2007 number of employees, revenues, or both 

associated with the location. Overall, oilfield services account for more than 63,000 employees 

and approximately $19.3 billion in revenues.

One result of the study is the realization that, although the oil services contract industry contains 

giants such as Halliburton and Schlumberger that provide thousands of jobs and earn millions in 

revenue, it also contains hundreds of small companies. Most of these are privately owned and 

play an integral part in the economic life of the communities in which they are located. 

Companies with a good idea and a handful of employees can and do carve niches in which to 

operate. 

A second realization is the wide diversity of activities that support oil and gas operations in the 

GOM OCS show areas of regional concentration. Table 69 through Table 71 summarize the 

number of locations, revenues, and number of employees by sector and state, respectively. The 

tables are calculated on the basis of all locations in every sector, that is, they include the 

duplicate locations because ERG did not have the data to determine how to split the revenues and 

employment for a location listed under more than one sector. Thus, Table 69 shows 1,195 

locations, Table 70 shows $20.2 billion in revenue, and Table 71 shows 64,447 employees and 
132

not the 1,143 locations, $19.3 billion in revenue, and 63,021 employees shown in Table 1 in the 

Executive Summary

The geological and geophysical prospecting sector is extremely concentrated in the Houston, 

Texas area in Harris County. About two-thirds of the locations, 85 percent of the employees, and 

95 percent of the revenues listed in Table 5 are located in the Houston area. Texas claims 84 

percent of the locations, 90 percent of the employees, and 99 percent of the identifiable revenues. 

The percentage of revenues might be skewed because revenues for the Louisiana locations could 

not be identified for seven of the 17 locations.

In terms of employment, Texas represents the majority for five sectors: drilling, drilling 

equipment, completions, and fishing. When revenues are considered, Texas represents the 

majority for an additional two sectors: measurement while drilling and diving.

Louisiana accounts for about 43 percent of the employment in the oil services contract industry 

and approximately 21 percent of the revenues. The imbalance is due to a combination of factors, 

including the sectors in which Louisiana shows more activity and the lack of revenue data for 

some Louisiana locations. If Texas is prospecting, Louisiana is food. Louisiana represents more 

than 90 percent of the revenues and employment for the catering sector. Louisiana also 

represents the majority of revenues and employment in air transportation, water transportation, 

accommodations, and cementing.

ERG identified 26 locations in Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, about two percent of the total. 

Six locations, however, offer diving services which constitutes about 10 percent of the revenues 

and locations for this sector. The other twenty locations offer drilling fluid supplies, drilling 

equipment, wellhead equipment, accommodations, air transportation, water transportation, or 

workover services.
133 

Table 69 

Number of Locations by Sector and State

Number of Locations Percent

Service Sector All Texas Louisiana Other All Texas Louisiana Other

Geological & Geophysical Prospecting 104 87 17 0 100% 84% 16% 0%

Drilling 67 53 14 0 100% 79% 21% 0%

Drilling Fluid Supplies 89 46 41 2 100% 52% 46% 2% 

Drilling Equipment 179 99 79 1 100% 55% 44% 1% 

Mudlogging 14 9 5 0 100% 64% 36% 0%

Measurement While Drilling (MWD) 46 29 17 0 100% 63% 37% 0%

Cementing 21 9 12 0 100% 43% 57% 0% 

Reservoir Evaluation 117 62 55 0 100% 53% 47% 0% 

Completions 41 22 19 0 100% 54% 46% 0%

Fishing 11 4 7 0 100% 36% 64% 0%

Accomodations 21 8 11 2 100% 38% 52% 10% 

Air Transportation 64 21 38 5 100% 33% 59% 8% 

Water Transportation 144 42 94 8 100% 29% 65% 6%

Wellhead Equipment 110 50 59 1 100% 45% 54% 1%

Workover 86 41 44 1 100% 48% 51% 1% 

Catering 21 4 17 0 100% 19% 81% 0% 

Diving 60 26 28 6 100% 43% 47% 10%

Total: 1195 612 557 26 Average: 49% 48% 2% 
134 

Table 70 

Revenues by Sector and State

Reported Revenues Percent

Service Sector All Texas Louisiana Other All Texas Louisiana Other

Geological & Geophysical Prospecting $2,941.99 $2,902.05 $39.94 $0.00 100% 99% 1% 0% 

Drilling $6,332.14 $5,904.50 $427.64 $0.00 100% 93% 7% 0% 

Drilling Fluid Supplies $846.32 $387.97 $457.71 $0.64 100% 46% 54% 0%

Drilling Equipment $2,242.85 $1,738.51 $501.16 $3.18 100% 78% 22% 0%

Mudlogging $69.20 $47.54 $21.66 $0.00 100% 69% 31% 0% 

Measurement While Drilling (MWD) $674.82 $499.29 $175.53 $0.00 100% 74% 26% 0% 

Cementing $114.09 $44.66 $69.43 $0.00 100% 39% 61% 0%

Reservoir Evaluation $544.75 $341.88 $202.87 $0.00 100% 63% 37% 0%

Completions $821.74 $722.50 $99.24 $0.00 100% 88% 12% 0% 

Fishing $60.94 $55.92 $5.02 $0.00 100% 92% 8% 0% 

Accomodations $168.44 $41.49 $125.57 $1.38 100% 25% 75% 1%

Air Transportation $158.23 $20.95 $136.28 $1.00 100% 13% 86% 1%

Water Transportation $794.41 $140.59 $646.08 $7.74 100% 18% 81% 1% 

Wellhead Equipment $1,334.46 $912.77 $421.69 $0.00 100% 68% 32% 0% 

Workover $557.01 $156.77 $400.24 $0.00 100% 28% 72% 0%

Catering $438.80 $35.55 $403.25 $0.00 100% 8% 92% 0%

Diving $2,072.50 $1,702.31 $174.46 $195.73 100% 82% 8% 9% 

Total: $20,172.69 $15,655.25 $4,307.77 $209.67 Average: 58% 42% 1% 
135 

Table 71 

Number of Employees by Sector and State

Number of Employees Percent

Service Sector All Texas Louisiana Other All Texas Louisiana Other

Geological & Geophysical Prospecting 5,883 5,330 553 0 100% 91% 9% 0% 

Drilling 11,088 8260 2828 0 100% 74% 26% 0% 

Drilling Fluid Supplies 1,303 587 713 3 100% 45% 55% 0%

Drilling Equipment 10,660 7,988 2657 15 100% 75% 25% 0%

Mudlogging 652 323 329 0 100% 50% 50% 0% 

Measurement While Drilling (MWD) 2,150 1,103 1,047 0 100% 51% 49% 0% 

Cementing 1,018 388 630 0 100% 38% 62% 0%

Reservoir Evaluation 3,808 2,046 1,762 0 100% 54% 46% 0%

Completions 2,450 2,105 345 0 100% 86% 14% 0% 

Fishing 402 336 66 0 100% 84% 16% 0% 

Accomodations 1,338 75 1251 12 100% 6% 93% 1%

Air Transportation 913 156 751 6 100% 17% 82% 1%

Water Transportation 5,055 880 4050 125 100% 17% 80% 2% 

Wellhead Equipment 4,523 2,882 1,641 0 100% 64% 36% 0% 

Workover 5,367 2197 3160 10 100% 41% 59% 0%

Catering 4,270 355 3915 0 100% 8% 92% 0%

Diving 3,567 1606 1890 71 100% 45% 53% 2% 

Total: 64,447 36,617 27588 242 Average: 50% 50% 0% 
137

6 LITE R ATUR E C ITE D

Allis-Chalmers. 2007. Allis-Chalmers Energy announces directional drilling acquisitions. 

Internet website: http://www.alchenergy.com/investor.html. July 31.

AOA Geophysics. 2009. AOA Geophysics—about us. Internet website: 

http://www.aoageophysics.com/about-AOA.html. 

AP (Associated Press). 2006. Aramark to go private again after buyout. The Washington Post. 

December 20. Internet website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/

2006/12/20/AR2006122001474.html. 

API (American Petroleum Institute). 2008. 2007 Joint association survey on drilling costs. 

Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute.

Aramark. 2007. Investor relations. Internet website: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml

?c=130030&p=irol-irhome. 

Arcapita. 2007. Arcapita announces agreement to acquire Varel International for $369 million. 

Internet website: http://www.arcapita.com/media/press_releases/2007/10-01-07.html. 

October 1.

Baker Hughes. 2007a. INTEQ enters into services agreement for Intelliserv® wired drill pipe 

telemetry system. Internet website: http://investor.shareholder.com/bhi/releasedetail.cfm?

ReleaseID=301354. July 25.

Baker Hughes. 2007b. Baker Oil Tools sets new water depth record for intelligent well 

completion. Internet website: http://investor.shareholder.com/bhi/releasedetail.cfm? 

ReleaseID=354627. January 25.

Baker Hughes. 2008a. Baker Hughes INTEQ launches aXcelerate. Internet website: 

http://investor.shareholder.com/bhi/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=346357. November 6.

Baker Hughes. 2008b. Baker Oil Tools installs two million feet of inflow control completion 

systems. Internet website: http://investor.shareholder.com/bhi/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=

322587. June 30.

Bommer, P. 2008. A primer of oil-well drilling. 7th edition. Austin, TX: University of Texas 

Press. Internet website: http://www.utexas.edu/ce/petex/aids/pubs/oilwell-drilling-primer/. 

BP. 2006. British Petroleum. Atlantis Sets Sail! News Release. August 14. Internet website: 

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=4705&contentId=7039911

Bristow Group. 2009. Investor presentation. Internet website: http://phx.corporateir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MzM4ODEyfENoaWxkSUQ9MzI1NDcxfFR5c

GU9MQ==&t=1 and links from http://ir.bristowgroup.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=91226&p=irolIRHome. May.
138

Business Wire. 2000. eSeis acquires Ulterra Geoscience and GeoScope Exploration 

Technologies. Internet website: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/

is_2000_May_16/ai_62114695. May 16.

C&C Technologies. 2009. Geophysical operations. Internet website: 

http://www.teslaoffshore.com/geo.htm. 

Cabot. 2008. Annual report ’08. Internet website: http://library.corporateir.net/library/94/945/94559/items/322349/04A27691-46AE-4100-9ED2-

306BD2B54379_CBT_annual_report_2008.pdf. 

Candover. 2008. Umbrellastream Limited a company formed and ultimately owned by a 

consortium comprising funds managed or advised by Candover Partners Limited, together 

with Goldman Sachs Capital Partners and AlpInvest Partners N.V.—Completion of 

Acquisition and Scheme now effective. Internet website: 

http://www.candoverinvestments.com/media/latest-plcnews/147122?1=1&blockid=305072&blocktemplateid=32266. January 7.

Caterersearch. 2008. Company profile: Compass Group. Internet website: 

http://www.caterersearch.com/Companies/33936/compass-group.html. February 27.

CGGVeritas. 2007. Form 20-F for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2007. Internet website: 

http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/webusers.htm. 

Chet Morrison. 2008. Chet Morrison seals deal with IOS, forms well services co. Rigzone. 

Internet website: https://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=60034. April 11.

Chevron Phillips. 2009. Company overview. Internet website: http://www.cpchem.com/enu/

about_us.asp. 

Compass. 2007. Delivering profitable growth: annual report 2007. Internet website: 

http://www.compass-group.com/NR/rdonlyres/96591AB2-F1A0-41EE-A6B7-

6425FD73B41F/0/Compass_Report_2007.pdf. 

Craig Group. 2008. Statement from Craig Group on sale of foodservice business. Internet 

website: http://www.craig-group.com/Press_Office.html?story=2. August 20.

D&B. 2009. Million dollar database. Accessed through Boston Public Library.

DeCort, T. 2010. Personal communication between Thierry DeCort, BOEMRE and Maureen 

Kaplan, ERG, dated February 26.

Dismukes, D.E. 2010. Fact book: Offshore oil and gas industry support sectors. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study BOEMRE 2010, forthcoming.
139

Dismukes D.E., W.O. Olatube, D.V. Mesyanzhinov, and A.G. Pulsipher. 2003. Modeling the 

economic impacts of offshore oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico: Methods and 

Applications. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, 

and Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study BOEMRE

2003-018. 

Diving Heritage. 2009. Saturation diving. Internet website: http://www.divingheritage.com/

saturation.htm. 

DWS (DWS International Inc.). 2009. Seismic and technical services brochure. Internet website: 

http://dwsii.com/files/STS.pdf. 

ETI (Exploration Technologies, Inc.). 1984. Overview of geochemical exploration technology. 

Internet website: http://www.eti-geochemistry.com/overview/index.html. February 16.

Evergreen. 2009. About us. Internet website: http://www.evergreenaviation.com/about.html. 

FAA (Federal Aviation Administration, National Flight Data Center). 2009a. Facilities database. 

Internet website: http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/airportdata_5010/ Downloaded 

June 3. 

FAA (Federal Aviation Administration). 2009b. Fact sheet: next generation air transportation 

system. Internet website: http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=

10261. December 18.

Fairfield Industries. 2009. Data acquisition: the fleet. Internet website: 

http://www.fairfield.com/Services/Data%20Acquisition/Fleet/index.html

Forbes. 2008. America’s largest private companies: #256 Apex Oil. Internet website: 

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/21/privates08_Apex-Oil_148L.html. November 3.

Fred Olsen. 2009. Offices. Internet website: http://www.fredolsen-energy.com/?aid=9046866. 

Fryar Law Firm. 2009. What’s new at Fryar Law Firm? Fiongos v. El-Can Exploration, Inc. 

Settlement. Internet website: http://www.fryarlawfirm.com/whats_new. 

Fugro. 2007. Annual report 2007. Internet website: 

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/FUGRO/577346477x0x280061/a7e42111-769e491e-90a3-d91543a7aec9/Fugro%20JV2008%20ENG-LRDyn.pdf

Funk, V. 2009. Personal communication between Velton Funk, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Energy 

Information Administration, and Maureen F. Kaplan, Eastern Research Group. October 20.

GCOD (Gulf Coast Oil Directory). 2008. Internet website: http://www.oilonline.com. 

GE (General Electric). 2007. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2007. Internet 

website: http://www.sec.gov. 
140

GE (General Electric). 2008. GE completes acquisition of Hydril Pressure Control Business, 

further enhancing GE oil & gas offering. Internet website: http://www.geoilandgas.com/

businesses/ge_oilandgas/en/about/press/en/2008_press/040108.htm. April 1.

Geokinetics. 2007. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2007. Internet website: 

http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/webusers.htm. 

Geoservices. 2008. Acquisition. Internet website: http://www.geoservices.com/pressreleases.html. October 2.

Global Maritime Solutions. 2009. Welcome to Global Maritime Solutions. Internet website: 

http://www.global-maritime.com/. 

Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. 2007. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007. 

Internet website: http://www.sec.gov. 

GulfLand Structures. 2009. GulfLand Structures. Internet website: 

http://gulflandstructures.com/index.html. 

HAI (Helicopter Association International). 2009. Membership search. Internet website: 

http://www.rotor.com/Default.aspx?tabid=623. 

Halliburton. 2008a. Halliburton and TOTAL to develop ultra-high-temperature measurementwhile-drilling system. Internet website: http://www.halliburton.com/public/news/pubsdata/

press_release/2008/corpnws_082608.html. August 26.

Halliburton. 2008b. Halliburton acquires 100 percent of WellDynamics. Internet website: 

http://www.halliburton.com/public/news/pubsdata/press_release/2008/corpnws_070108.html. 

July 1.

Helmerich & Payne. 2008a. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008. Internet 

website: http://www.sec.gov. 

Helmerich & Payne. 2008b. Helmerich & Payne, Inc. announces new build orders and 

acquisition of developing technology. Internet website: http://phx.corporateir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=101650&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1151503&highlight. May 28.

Hercules Offshore. 2009. Hercules Offshore drilling. Internet website: 

http://www.herculesoffshore.com/drilling.html. 

IHS. 2008. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending November 30, 2008. Internet website: 

http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/webusers.htm. 

Innicor. 2008. BJ Services Company successfully completes offer for Innicor common shares. 

Internet website: http://www.innicor.com/uploads/May%2021%20News%20Release(1).pdf. 

May 21.
141

ION Geophysical Corporation. 2007. Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ending December 31, 

2007. Internet website: http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/webusers.htm. 

ITA (International Trade Administration). 2009. Oil country tubular goods from the People’s 

Republic of China: initiation of antidumping duty investigation. Federal Register 74:20671-

20682. May 9.

Kamalakaran, A. 2008. Smith Int'l to buy W-H Energy Services for $3.2 bln. Reuters. June 3. 

Internet website: http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USBNG7589020080603. 

Kaplan, M.F. 1988. Photograph taken during site visit to Platforms Grace and Gail with 

permission of Chevron Oil Company.

LEDA (Lafayette Economic Development Authority). 2008. Top employers in Lafayette Parish 

as of February 2008. Internet website: http://www.lafayette.org/site50.php; 

http://www.lafayette.org/uploads/DownloadTopEmployers2008.xls. 

Leirvik Beacon. 2009. Company description in Subsea Oil and Gas Directory. Internet website: 

http://www.subsea.org/company/listdetails.asp?companyid=1503

manta.com. 2009. Manta: vital information on small businesses (and those that grew). Internet 

website: http://www.manta.com/. 

Marine & Offshore Supplies. 2009. Marine & Offshore Supplies, Inc. Internet website: 

http://www.marineoffshore.net/. 

Marine Yellow Pages. 2008. Gulf States. Orlando, FL: Davis Publishing Company, LLC. 

Internet website: http://www.marineyellowpages.com/default.aspx. 

Mouawad, J. 2006. Drilling deep in the Gulf of Mexico. New York Times. Internet website: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/08/business/worldbusiness/08gulf.html?ei=5088&en=50. 

November 8.

Nabors Industries. 2008. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2008. Internet 

website: http://www.sec.gov. 

Nabors Industries. 2009. Rig fleet. Internet website: http://www.nabors.com/Public/

Index.asp?Page_ID=10. 

Noble Corporation. 2009. Noble Corporation. Corporate website. Rig. Fleet. Noble Lester Pettus. 

Internet website: http://www.noblecorp.com/Fleet/RigSummary.asp?RigType_VC=

Submersible. 

Noble Corporation. 2007. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2007. Internet 

website: http://www.sec.gov. 
142

NOV (National Oilwell Varco). 2007a. National Oilwell Varco acquires majority stake in Sara 

Services and Engineers. Internet website: http://www.nov.com/investor/

investorrelations.aspx. July 31.

NOV (National Oilwell Varco). 2007b. National Oilwell Varco completes Gammaloy 

acquisition. Internet website: http://www.nov.com/investor/investorrelations.aspx. April 19.

NOV (National Oilwell Varco). 2007c. National Oilwell Varco completes acquisition of NQL 

Energy Services. Internet website: http://www.nov.com/investor/investorrelations.aspx. 

January 9.

NOV (National Oilwell Varco). 2008a. National Oilwell Varco and Schlumberger enter into 

agreement to form intelligent drill pipe joint venture. News release: Internet website: 

http://www.nov.com/investor/investorrelations.aspx. November 19.

NOV (National Oilwell Varco). 2008b. National Oilwell Varco, Inc. announces successful 

acquisition of Grant Prideco, Inc. Internet website: 

http://www.nov.com/News/grantPrideco.asp?srcid=hmlnk. April 21.

NOV (National Oilwell Varco). 2009. National Oilwell Varco announces two acquisitions. 

Internet website: http://www.nov.com/investor/investorrelations.aspx. April 8.

Obermiller, J. 2009. Personal communication between Jeff Obermiller, American Petroleum 

Institute, and Maureen F. Kaplan, Eastern Research Group. January 27.

Ocean Hotels. 2009. Financial reports Ocean Hotels; Ocean Hotels intro. Internet website:

http://www.oceanhotels.no/default.aspx?id1=6&id2=38; 

http://www.oceanhotels.no/default.aspx?id1=2&id2=1. 

Offshore Magazine. 2008. 2008 worldwide survey of deepwater drilling rigs: drilling rigs 

operational for water depths >4,000'. Poster. Internet website: 

http://downloads.pennnet.com/os/posters/063008drillrig-posterfinal-app.pdf (49 megabyte 

file size). July.

Offshore Magazine. 2009. Baker Hughes to acquire BJ Services. Internet website: 

http://www.offshore-mag.com/offshore/en-us/index/articledisplay.articles.offshore.company-news.us-gulf-of-mexico-2.2009.08.bakerhughes_to_acquire.html. August 31. 

Offshore Oil & Gas News. 2009. Delta Catering becomes Sodexo subsidiary. Internet website: 

http://www.energycurrent.com/index.php?id=2&storyid=15534. January 27.

Offshore-Technology. n.d. Thunder Hawk Field, Gulf of Mexico, USA. Internet website: 

http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/thunderhawke/

OHM (Offshore Hydrocarbon Mapping). 2007. Annual report 2007. Internet website: 

http://www.ohmsurveys.com/files/OHM_AR_2008_final.pdf
143

Oil & Gas Directory. 2008. Information services. Internet website: 

http://www.informationservices.com/oil_and_gas_directory/index.htm. 

Oil States. 2007. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2007. Internet website: 

http://www.sec.gov. 

Oil States. 2009. Accommodations. Internet website: http://oilstatesintl.com/fw/main/

Accommodations-134.html. 

OMSA (Offshore Marine Service Association). 2009a. Offshore Marine Service Association: 

America’s lifeline to offshore energy; vessels. Internet website: 

http://www.offshoremarine.org/; http://www.offshoremarine.org/Vessels/. 

OMSA (Offshore Marine Service Association). 2009b. The mission of Offshore Marine Service 

Association (OMSA). Internet website: http://www.offshoremarine.org/About/America-sLifeline-to-Offshore-Energy.html. 

PHI. 2008. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2008. Internet website: 

http://www.sec.gov. 

Premium Drilling. 2009. About us; fleet information. Internet website: 

http://www.premiumdrilling.com/company_background.htm; 

http://www.premiumdrilling.com/contract_status.htm. 

Pride International. 2008. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2008. Internet 

website: http://www.sec.gov. 

Prosafe. 2007. 2007 annual report. Internet website: http://www.prosafe.com/getfile.php/

2007%20annual%20report/PDF%20filer/Annual%20report%202007.pdf

Prosafe. 2008. 2008 annual report. Internet website: http://www.prosafe.com/getfile.php/

2008%20annual%20report/PDF%20filer/Annual%20Report/Annual%20report%202008. 

Quillen, K. 2008. Broussard oilfield services provider acquired. The Times Picayune. Internet 

website: http://blog.nola.com/tpmoney/2008/10/broussard_oilfield_services_pr.html. October 

3. 

Rattler Tools. 2009. Welcome to Rattler Tools, Inc. Internet website: 

http://www.rattlertools.com/index.html. 

Richardson, G.E., L.D. Nixon, C.M. Bohannon, E.G. Kazanis, T.M. Montgomery, and M.P. 

Gravois. 2008. Deepwater Gulf of Mexico 2008: America’s offshore energy future. U.S. 

Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study BOEMRE 2008-013. 

Rigzone. 2007. Saipem wins contract for Scarabeo 9 newbuild. Rigzone. Internet website: 

http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=52751. November 12.
144

Rigzone. 2008. DryShips to take over Ocean Rig ASA. Rigzone. Internet website: 

http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=62317. May 18.

Rigzone.com. 2009. Offshore Rig Data. Rigzone. Internet website: 

http://www.rigzone.com/data/advanced_search.asp

Rowan Companies. 2008. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2008. Internet 

website: http://www.sec.gov. 

S&P (Standard and Poor’s). 2008. Industry surveys. Oil and gas: equipment and services. 

February 28.

Schlumberger. 2007a. Exploration and production markets offer growth potential. Executive 

presentation at Lehman Brothers CEO Energy/Power Conference 2006. Internet website: 

Schlumberger. 2007b. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2007. Internet 

website: 

http://www.slb.com/content/news/presentations/2006/20060906_agould_newyork.asp.

http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/webusers.htm. 

Schlumberger. 2007c. Schlumberger acquires leading geomechanics firm. Internet website: 

http://www.slb.com/modules/news/press/release_details.asp?id=20624&. May 10.

Schlumberger. 2007d. Schlumberger acquires InnerLogix. Internet website: 

http://www.slb.com/modules/news/press/release_details.asp?id=20864&. September 11.

Schlumberger. 2008a. Schlumberger acquires Extreme Engineering. Internet website: 

http://www.slb.com/modules/news/press/release_details.asp?id=21136&. June 24.

Schlumberger. 2008b. Schlumberger acquires Integrated Exploration Systems, Inc. Internet 

website: http://www.slb.com/modules/news/press/release_details.asp?id=21133&. June 8.

Schlumberger. 2009. Schlumberger introduces new telemetry platform. Internet website: 

http://www.slb.com/modules/news/press/release_details.asp?id=21174&. March 17.

Schlumberger. 2010. Schlumberger. Oilfield glossary. Measurement while drilling. Internet 

website: http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/Display.cfm?Term=measurements%2Dwhile%

2Ddrilling. March 31.

Scorpion Offshore. 2009. Internet website: http://www.scorpionoffshore.com/; 

http://cws.huginonline.com/S/136299/PR/200904/1310505_5.html 

Seacor Holdings. 2008. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2008. Internet 

website: http://www.sec.gov. 

Seacor Marine. 2009. About the vessel. Internet website: http://seacormarine.com/crewzer/

about.html. 
145

SEG (Society for Exploration Geophysicists). 2009. SEG virtual geoscience center. Biographies: 

Jack C. Weyand. Internet website: http://www.mssu.edu/seg-vm/bio_jack_c__weyand.html. 

Seis Strat. 2009. History of Seis-Strat. Internet website: http://www.seis-strat.com/en/cms/?16. 

Seitel. 2007. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2007. Internet website: 

http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/webusers.htm. 

Silvetti. 2009. Introduction of services; Marine Surveys, LLC. Internet website: 

http://www.jdsilvetti.com/group-intro.html and http://www.jdsilvetti.com/ms.html. 

Smith International. 2008. Smith International and W-H Energy Services enter into definitive 

merger agreement. Internet website: http://www.smith.com/. June 3.

Sodexho. 2007. Annual report 2006–2007. Internet website: http://www.sodexo.com/group_en/

Images/sodexo_annual_report_2007_LD_tcm13-99199.pdf. 

Sodexo. 2008. Sodexho becomes Sodexo, the reference brand in quality of life services. Internet 

website: http://www.sodexousa.com/usen/newsroom/press/sodexhosodexo.asp. January 22.

Songa Offshore Group. 2009. Internet website: http://www.songaoffshore.no/ and 

http://www.songaoffshore.no/media/090407_Rig_Status.pdf. 

Spectrum ASA. 2009. The company. Internet website: http://www.spectrumasa.com/TheCompany.php

Spirit Drilling and Completion Fluids. 2007. Spirit Drilling and Completion Fluids expand to 

Rockies, renames Dynamic Drilling Fluids Operations. Internet website: 

http://pdf.send2press.com/news_2007-09-0928-001.pdf. September 28.

STA (Science and Technology in Action). 2006. Locating and extracting oil and gas. Internet 

website: http://www.sciencetechnologyaction.com/lessons2.php?studyid=35&edition=2. 

February 16, 2009.

Stallion Oilfield Services. 2009. Stallion Oilfield Services. Internet website: 

http://www.stallionoilfield.com/index.php?page=main. 

Stena Drilling. 2009. About Stena Drilling; location map. Internet website: http://www.stenadrilling.com/sub.asp?m=about&p=about and http://www.stenadrilling.com/sub.asp?m=drilling&p=map. 

Stone Energy Corporation. 2008. Stone Energy Corporation announces the acquisition of Bois 

d’Arc Energy. Internet website: http://www.stoneenergy.com/pdf/press/2008/

SGYBDEAcquisition.pdf. April 30.

Subsea Oil & Gas Directory. 2008. Subsea oil and gas directory. Internet website: 

http://www.subsea.org/index.html. Searched February 2009.
146

Superior Energy Services. 2006. Superior Energy Services, Inc. signs definitive merger 

agreement to acquire Warrior Energy Services Corporation. Internet website: 

http://ir.superiorenergy.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=97570&p=irolnewsArticle&ID=908497&highlight. September 25.

Superior Energy Services. 2007. Superior completes acquisition of Warrior Energy Services 

Corporation. Internet website: http://ir.superiorenergy.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=97570&p=irolnewsArticle&ID=941641&highlight. December 12.

Taylors International Services. 2009. Oil & gas. Internet website: http://www.taylorsinternational.com/oilandgas.html. 

Templeton & Associates. 2009. What is a liftboat? Internet website: 

http://liftboats.com/whatis.htm. 

Tenaris. 2007. Tenaris to acquire Hydril. Internet website: 

http://www.tenaris.com/media/pr/prFiles/1784.pdf. February 12.

Tesla Offshore. 2009. Geophysical operations. Internet website: 

http://www.teslaoffshore.com/geo.htm

TGS-NOPEC. 2007. Annual report 2007. Internet website: http://www.tgsnopec.com/investorrelations/shareholder-information/annual-reports/2007.aspx

The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 2004. OCS-related infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico fact book. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and 

Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study BOEMRE 2004-

027. Internet website: http://www.gomr.mms.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/2/2984.pdf. 

The Mudlogging Company. 2009. About the Mudlogging Company: Corporate history. Internet 

website: http://www.mudloggingco.com/AboutUs/AboutTMC.aspx?viewID=1. 

Thibodeaux, E. 2009a. Personal communication between Earl Thibodeaux, COMM Engineering, 

and Maureen F. Kaplan, Eastern Research Group. June 18.

Thibodeaux, E. 2009b. Personal communication between Earl Thibodeaux, COMM Engineering, 

and Maureen F. Kaplan, Eastern Research Group. October 19.

Tidewater. 2009. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2009. Internet website:

http://www.sec.gov. 

Transocean. 2007a. Transocean announces closing of merger with GlobalSantaFe. Internet 

website: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/preview/phoenix.zhtml?c=113031&p=irolnewsArticle&ID=1081502&highlight=. November 27.

Transocean. 2007b. Transocean Inc. and GlobalSantaFe Corporation agree to combine. Internet 

website: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=113031&p=irolnewsArticle&ID=1029029&highlight. July 23.
147

Transocean. 2010. Transocean Inc. Discoverer Enterprise. Internet website: 

http://deepwater.com/fw/main/Discoverer-Enterprise-141.html March 30. 

Trinidad. 2007. Trinidad Energy Services Income Trust announces closing of the Axxis 

acquisition and $325 million convertible debenture financing. Internet website: 

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=220829&p=irolnewsArticle&ID=1260692&highlight. July 5.

Trinidad. 2008. Trinidad Drilling Ltd. announces the acquisition of Victory Rig Equipment 

Corporation and the creation of a full service design and manufacturing division. Internet 

website: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=220829&p=irolnewsArticle&ID=1248838&highlight. September 3.

TSC. 2008. TSC is digging deeper. Internet website: 

http://www.tscoffshore.com/100057/100097/435.html. April 30.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2005a. United States: 2002. 2002 Economic Series. Professional, scientific, 

and technical services. Geographic Area Series. EC02-54A-1US. Internet website: 

http://www.census.gov/prod/ec02/ec0254a1us.pdf. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2005b. United States: 2002. 2002 Economic Census. Mining. Subject 

Series. EC02-21SG-1. Internet website: http://www.census.gov/prod/ec02/ec0221sg1t.pdf. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2005c. United States: 2002. 2002 Economic Census. General summary: 

2002. Manufacturing. Subject Series. EC02-31SG-1. Internet website: 

http://www.census.gov/prod/ec02/ec0231sg1t.pdf. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2005d. United States: 2002. 2002 Economic Census. Establishment and 

firm size. Transportation and warehousing. Subject Series. EC02-48SS-SZ. Internet website: 

http://www.census.gov/prod/ec02/ec0248ssszt.pdf. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2005e. United States: 2002. 2002 Economic Census. Establishment and 

firm size. Accommodation and food services. Subject Series. EC02-72SS-SZ. Internet 

website: http://www.census.gov/prod/ec02/ec0272ssszt.pdf. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2005f. United States: 2002. 2002 Information. Geographic Area Series. 

EC02-51A-1US. Internet website: http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/guide/

EC02_51.HTM. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009a. North American Industrial Classification System. Description of 

industry 722310 food service contractors. Internet website: http://www.census.gov/cgibin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=722310&search=2007. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009b. North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). 2007 

NAICS definition. 541360 geophysical surveying and mapping services. Internet website:

http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=541360&search=2007. 
148

U.S. Dept. of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2007. Costs and indices for domestic 

oil and gas field equipment and production operations 1988–2006. Internet website: 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/cost_indices_equipment_

production/current/coststudy.html and 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/cost_indices_equipment_

production/current/coststudy.xls. 

U.S. Dept. of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2008. Performance profiles of major 

energy producers 2007. USDOE/EIA-0206(07). Internet website:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/

perfpro/020607.pdf. December.

U.S. Dept. of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2009a. Definitions, sources and 

explanatory notes: seismic. Internet website: 

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/TblDefs/pet_crd_seis_tbldef2.asp. February 13.

U.S. Dept. of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2009b. Weekly United States spot 

price FOB weighted by estimated import volume (dollars per barrel). Internet website: 

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist_xls/WTOTUSAw.xls. 

U.S. Dept. of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2009c. Financial Reporting System. 

Form 28. Internet website: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/finance/frsform.html. Detailed 

tables: Internet website: ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/energy.overview/frs/s5211.xls. 

U.S. Dept. of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2009d. Financial Reporting System. 

Form 28. Instructions. Internet website: 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/perfpro/form/eia28_instructions_2007.pdf

U.S. Dept. of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2009e. Petroleum Navigator. 

Maximum U.S. active seismic crew counts (number of crew). Internet website: 

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_seis_s1_a.htm; 

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/xls/PET_CRD_SEIS_S1_M.xls. 

U.S. Dept. of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory. 2005. Benchmarking deep 

drilling: final report. Internet website: http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oilgas/publications/EP/DeepTrek_Benchmark-All.pdf

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement. 

2002. Field operator reporter’s handbook. Revision 01. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 

New Orleans, LA. Internet website: http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/mmsforms/ 

reportershandbook.pdf. November.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement. 

2005a. Upgrading the Outer Continental Shelf economic impact models for the Gulf of 

Mexico and Alaska MAG-PLAN: study plan. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New 

Orleans, LA. OCS Report BOEMRE 2005-046. 
149

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement. 

2005b. Upgrading the Outer Continental Shelf economic impact models for the Gulf of 

Mexico and Alaska: MAG-PLAN user manual, version 2.0. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Report BOEMRE 2005-048. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement. 

2006. Offshore minerals management. Alaska OCS Region. Beaufort Sea exploration wells. 

Internet website: http://www.mms.gov/alaska/fo/wellhistory/BS_WELLS.HTM; 

http://www.mms.gov/alaska/fo/wellhistory/ALLWELLC.HTM. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement. 

2009a. Offshore minerals management. glossary: gravity survey. Internet website: 

http://www.mms.gov/glossary/g.htm. February 16.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement. 

2009b. Gulf of Mexico Region. Platform Masters database as of April 1, 2009. Internet 

website: http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/pubinfo/freeasci/platform/freeplat.html. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement. 

2009c. Gulf of Mexico Region. Extractions from the web-accessible offshore statistics by 

water depth data base for the period 4/2/2008 to 4/2/2009. Internet website: 

http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/

fastfacts/WaterDepth/wdmaster.asp. 

U.S. Dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2008. Employer costs for employee 

compensation., Internet website: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf and 

http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ecsuptc9.pdf (detailed data tables). December 2008 (released 

March 12, 2009).

Van Dyke, K. 1997. Fundamentals of petroleum. 4th

Vann, D. and J. Vorosmarti, Jr. 2001. Chapter 31: military diving operations and medical 

support. In: Medical aspects of harsh environments. Internet website: 

edition. Austin, TX: University of Texas 

Press.

http://www.bordeninstitute.army.mil/published_volumes/harshEnv1/harshEnv1.html; 

http://www.bordeninstitute.army.mil/published_volumes/harshEnv2/harshEnv2.html. 

Weatherford. 2008. Weatherford acquires International Logging. Internet website: 

http://www.weatherford.com/weatherford/groups/public/documents/aboutwft/ir_newsreleases.asp?id=1188171. August 18.
A-1

Appendix A: Location Tables 

Table A-1 

Locations Offering Geological and Geophysical Surveying in the Gulf of Mexico

Company Name Parent Company City State

County/ 

Parish

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Alpha Geo Inc Houston TX Harris

Less than 

$0.5 1

AOA Geomarine 

Operations Schlumberger Houston TX Harris $1.5 8

Apex Geophysical Services 

Inc Metairie LA Jefferson $0.2 2

Austin Exploration Inc Houston TX Harris $0.7 8

Baird Petrophysical 

International, Inc. Houston TX Harris $0.1 1

Bell Geospace Inc Houston TX Harris $11.0 15

Bird Geophysical Houston TX Harris 26 to 100

Bois D'Arc Energy

Stone Energy 

Corporation Lafayette LA Lafayette 17

Bois D'Arc Energy

Stone Energy 

Corporation Houston TX Harris

$100 to 

$500 3

C & C Technologies Lafayette LA Lafayette

C & C Technologies Houston TX Harris 6

Centerline Geophysical, 

Inc. Houston TX Harris $0.8 15

CGGVeritas CGGVeritas Houston TX Harris 500

CR Willingham & 

Associates Houston TX Fort Bend 1 to 25

dGB Earth Sciences dGB Beheer BV Sugar Land TX Fort Bend

Less than

$25.0 20

Dune International Houston TX Harris

Less than 

$25.0 1 to 25

DWS International Inc. Corpus Christi TX Nuceses $3.6 16

Earthfield Technology Inc Cypress TX Harris

$0.5 to 

$1.0 5

EMGS EMGS Houston TX Harris $2.5 10

Ensoco Inc Houston TX Harris $1.4 23

EPIC Geophysical LLC Conroe TX

Montgome

ry

Less than 

$0.5 1 to 4

eSeis Inc Houston TX Harris $1.6 15

Explorer Group 1, The Spring TX Harris $0.4 5

Fairfield Industries Inc Lafayette LA Lafayette $31.7 275

Fairfield Industries Inc New Orleans LA Orleans 2

Fairfield Industries Inc Sugar Land TX Fort Bend $47.5 205

First Exchange Corp Houston TX Harris $2.2 1 to 25

Fugro Airborne Surveys Fugro N.V. Houston TX Harris $136.5 156
A-2

Table A-1. Locations Offering Geological and Geophysical Surveying in the Gulf of Mexico 

(continued). 

Company Name Parent Company City State

County/ 

Parish

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Fugro GeoServices Inc Fugro N.V. Lafayette LA Lafayette 100

Fugro GeoServices Inc Fugro N.V. Patterson LA St. Mary $3.8 30

Fugro GeoServices Inc Fugro N.V. Houston TX Harris $9.5 40

Geocenter Inc Houston TX Harris $1.6 29

Geokinetics Inc Houston TX Harris 60

Geokinetics Processing Inc. Geokinetics, Inc. Houston TX Harris $2.4 46

Geokinetics USA Inc. Geokinetics, Inc. Houston TX Harris $8.0 4

Geophysical Pursuit Inc New Orleans LA Orleans

Geophysical Pursuit Inc Houston TX Harris

Under 

$0.5 1 to 5

Geophysical Service Inc Houston TX Harris $0.4 4

Geoscience Solutions LLC Magnolia TX

Montgome

ry $0.0 1

Geotrace Technologies Inc Houston TX Harris $10.4 194

Geotrak Corp Houston TX Harris $0.6 6

GETECH Inc Houston TX Harris

Grant Geophysical Inc. Geokinetics, Inc. Houston TX Harris $119.3 1000

Gulf Coast Velocity Data 

Inc Katy TX Harris

Hunter 3D Inc. Houston TX Harris

$0.5 to 

$1.0 3

IGC, Integrated Geophysics 

Corp Houston TX Harris

Less than 

$25.0 6

IHS Energy Log Services, 

Inc. IHS, Inc. Houston TX Harris $4.4 44

Interactive Interpretation & 

Training, Inc. Houston TX Harris $0.3 2

Ion Geophysical 

Corporation Harahan LA Jefferson

Ion Geophysical 

Corporation Stafford TX Fort Bend

Ion Geophysical 

Corporation Houston TX Harris $713.1 200

Istech Energy Resources Houston TX Harris 50

JD Silvetti Group of 

Companies Lafayette LA Lafayette

Less than 

$0.5 26 to 100

Jebco Seismic LLC Houston TX Harris $5.0 9

Kapadia & Associates 

International Inc. Houston TX Harris $0.3 1

Kelman Technologies Inc Houston TX Harris

Under 

$0.5 1 to 5

Kevin M. Smith, Inc. Houston TX Harris $0.2 1

Kinnickinnick Exploration Lafayette LA Lafayette $0.4 3
A-3

Table A-1. Locations Offering Geological and Geophysical Surveying in the Gulf of Mexico 

(continued). 

Company Name Parent Company City State

County/ 

Parish

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Lynx Information Systems, 

Inc. Houston TX Harris $1 to $2.5 7

Marine Surveys LLC

J.D. Silvetti Group 

of Companies Lafayette LA Lafayette

Less than 

$0.5 1 to 4

Meredith Minerals Co Houston TX Harris

Micro Strat Inc Houston TX Harris $0.6 8

NS Neidell & Associates Houston TX Harris $0.9 10

OYO Geospace Corp Houston TX Harris $138.1 627

OYO Geospace Corp Houston TX Harris

PAC Geophysical Inc Houston TX Harris $1.8 2

Padgett Exploration Houston TX Harris $0.4 1

Paradigm Geophysical 

Corp. 

Paradigm, Woking, 

Great Britain Houston TX Harris $9.2 120

Pellegrini Exploration The Woodlands TX

Montgome

ry $0.2 2

Petroalliance Services Co 

Ltd Schlumberger Houston TX Harris

Petrophysical Solutions Inc Houston TX Harris $0.3 9

Polaris E & E Services Inc The Woodlands TX

Montgome

ry

$0.5 to 

$1.0 7

Read Well Services 

Americas Houston TX Harris $2.5 5

Reservoir Definition Inc Houston TX Harris $0.3 5

Resolve GeoSciences Inc. Katy TX Fort Bend

Less than 

$25.0 1 to 25

Rock Solid Images

Offshore 

Hydrocarbon 

Mapping plc Houston TX Harris $1.3 38

SAI Sydboten & Associates 

Inc Lafayette LA Lafayette

Seabird Seabird Exploration Houston TX Harris $0.8 3

Seis Strat Services Willis Group Houston TX Harris $4.2 14

Seisborg Geophysical Seabrook TX Harris

Seismic Exchange Inc New Orleans LA Orleans 30

Seismic Exchange Inc Corpus Christi TX Nuceses

Seismic Exchange Inc Houston TX Harris $9.2 95

Seismic Micro-Technology 

Inc USA Houston TX Harris $9.0 125

Seismic Solutions Sugar Land TX Fort Bend $0.1 1

Seitel Inc Seitel Holdings, Inc. New Orleans LA Orleans

Less than 

$0.5 2

Seitel Inc Seitel Holdings, Inc. Houston TX Harris $18.7 90

Spectrum Energy & 

Information Technology Inc Houston TX Harris $4.7 44
A-4

Table A-1. Locations Offering Geological and Geophysical Surveying in the Gulf of Mexico 

(continued). 

Company Name Parent Company City State

County/ 

Parish

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Swinehart Consulting Spring TX Harris 1

Tesla Offshore LLC

Tesla Exploration 

Ltd. Prarieville LA Ascension $2.3 65

Tesla Offshore LLC

Tesla Exploration 

Ltd. Houston TX Harris 5

Texseis Inc Houston TX Harris $0.9 9

TGS-NOPEC Geophysical 

Co LP

TGS-NOPEC 

Geophysical 

Company ASA 

(Norway New Orleans LA Orleans

TGS-NOPEC Geophysical 

Co LP

TGS-NOPEC 

Geophysical 

Company ASA 

(Norway Humble TX Harris

TGS-NOPEC Geophysical 

Co LP

TGS-NOPEC 

Geophysical 

Company ASA 

(Norway Houston TX Harris 63

Timeslice Technology Inc Houston TX Harris $1.2 23

Trabant & Associates Houston TX Harris $0.1 2

Trabant & Associates Spicewood TX Travis $0.3 2

Vector Seismic Data 

Processing Inc Houston TX Harris 5

Weinman Geoscience Inc Houston TX Harris 2

Weinman Geoscience Inc Dallas TX Dallas $0.3 8

WesternGeco Schlumberger Houston TX Harris $1,200 1200

WesternGeco Schlumberger La Marque TX Galveston $6.0 52

Xcel Seismic Inc Richmond TX Fort Bend
A-5

Table A-2 

Locations Offering Drilling Services in the Gulf of Mexico

Company Name Parent Company City State

County/ 

Parish

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Appalachian Permit Co. Hercules Offshore, 

Inc.

Houston TX Harris $0.13 2

Applied Drilling 

Technology, Inc.

Transocean, Inc. Houston TX Harris $634.92 100

Asia Ensco Co. ENSCO 

International, Inc.

Dallas TX Dallas $11.90 100

Atwood Falcon Co. Atwood Oceanics, 

Inc.

Houston TX Harris $3.30 50

Atwood Hunter Co. Atwood Oceanics, 

Inc.

Houston TX Harris $4.20 70

Atwood Oceanics, Inc. Houston TX Harris

Axxis Drilling Trinidad Drilling 

Ltd.

Broussard LA Lafayette

Deepwater Drilling II

LLC

Transocean, Inc. Houston TX Harris $0.12 2

Diamond Offshore 

Drilling, Inc.

Loews Corp. Houston TX Harris $2,567.72 300

Diamond Offshore 

Drilling, Inc.

Loews Corp. New Iberia LA Iberia $2.16 15

Diamond Offshore 

Drilling, Inc.

Loews Corp. New Iberia LA Iberia $2.88 20

Ensco International Inc. ENSCO 

International, Inc.

Broussard LA Lafayette $14.40 100

ENSCO International Inc. Dallas TX Dallas 100

Ensco Offshore Co. II ENSCO 

International, Inc.

Broussard LA Lafayette $215.70 75

Ensco Platform Co ENSCO 

International, Inc.

Dallas TX Dallas $5.90 100

Fred Olson ASA. Houston TX Harris 1

Global Marine Inc. Transocean, Inc. Houston TX Harris $50.40

Global Santa Fe Drilling 

Co.

Transocean, Inc. Houston TX Harris $39.60 58

Global Santa Fe Inc. Transocean, Inc. Houston TX Harris $34.90 485

Helmerich & Payne 

International Drilling Co.

Helmerich & 

Payne Inc.

Alice TX Jim Wells $30.24 210 

Helmerich & Payne 

International Drilling Co.

Helmerich & 

Payne Inc.

Houston TX Harris $0.72 5 

Helmerich & Payne 

International Drilling Co.

Helmerich & 

Payne Inc.

Houston TX Harris $0.86 6 

Hercules Offshore Inc. Houston TX Harris 50

International Chandlers 

Inc.

Transocean, Inc. Houston TX Harris $0.24 4

Nabors Acquisition 

Corp., Inc.

Nabors Industries, 

Ltd.

Houston TX Harris $28.80 400

Nabors Drilling US LP Nabors Industries, 

Ltd.

Alice TX Jim Wells $0.86 6
A-6

Table A-2. Locations Offering Drilling Services in the Gulf of Mexico (continued). 

Company Name Parent Company City State

County/ 

Parish

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Nabors Drilling US LP Nabors Industries, 

Ltd.

Crosby TX Harris $2.88 20

Nabors Drilling US LP Nabors Industries, 

Ltd.

Houston TX Harris $117.80 150

Nabors Industries, Inc. Nabors Industries, 

Ltd.

Houston TX Harris $1,211.20 250

Nabors Offshore Corp. Nabors Industries, 

Ltd.

Houston TX Harris $64.80 40

Nabors Well Services Co. Nabors Industries, 

Ltd.

Corpus 

Christi 

TX Nueces $0.86 6

Nabors Well Services Co. Nabors Industries, 

Ltd.

Liberty TX Liberty $3.60 25

Nabors Well Services Co. Nabors Industries, 

Ltd.

Mission TX Hidalgo $8.64 60

Nabors Yemen Ltd. Nabors Industries, 

Ltd.

Houston TX Harris $0.18 3

Noble Corp. Sugar 

Land

TX Fort Bend $0.13 2

Noble Drilling Corp. Noble Corp Gibson LA Terrebonne $0.29 2

Noble Drilling Corp. Noble Corp New 

Orleans

LA Orleans $0.43 3

Noble Drilling Corp. Noble Corp Sugar 

Land

TX Fort Bend $36.00 300

Noble Drilling Inc. Noble Corp Sugar 

Land

TX Fort Bend $28.80 100

Noble Holding Corp. Noble Corp Sugar 

Land

TX Fort Bend $269.20 200

Offshore Drilling Co. Transocean, Inc. Houma LA Terrebonne $93.50 1,300

Offshore Drilling Co. Transocean, Inc. Houston TX Harris $30.30 420

Parker Drilling Co. Parker Drilling Co. Houston TX Harris $4.32 30

Parker Drilling Co. Houston TX Harris 110

Parker Drilling Co. Parker Drilling Co. New Iberia LA Iberia $0.43 3

Pride International Inc. Houston TX Harris 1,800

Pride International Ltd. Pride International, 

Inc.

Houston TX Harris $13.90 200

Pride Offshore, Inc. Pride International, 

Inc.

Houma LA Terrebonne $89.90 1,250

R&B Falcon Drilling 

International Deepwater 

Inc.

Hercules Offshore, 

Inc.

Houston TX Harris $136.70 300

Rowan Co's Inc. Rowan Co's, Inc. Sabine 

Pass

TX Jefferson $4.32 30 

Rowan Co's, Inc. Houston TX Harris 120

Rowan Drilling 

Company, Inc.

Rowan Co's, Inc. Golden 

Meadow

LA Lafourche $3.17 22
A-7

Table A-2. Locations Offering Drilling Services in the Gulf of Mexico (continued). 

Company Name Parent Company City State

County/ 

Parish

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Rowan Drilling 

Company, Inc.

Rowan Co's, Inc. Houston TX Harris $1.90 10

Rowan Marine Drilling, 

Inc.

Rowan Co's, Inc. Houston TX Harris $7.00 120

Rowan North Sea 

Investments

Rowan Co's, Inc. Houston TX Harris $0.12 2

Rowan Petroleum Inc. Rowan Co's, Inc. Houston TX Harris $10.00 120

Rowandrill Inc. Rowan Co's, Inc. Houston TX Harris $65.90 915

Saipem America, Inc. Saipem SpA Houston TX Harris $440.91 192

Spartan Offshore Drilling 

LLC

Metairie LA Jefferson $0.46 8

Todco Hercules Offshore, 

Inc.

Houston TX Harris 300

Transocean Inc. Transocean, Inc. Amelia LA Saint Mary $4.32 30

Transocean Inc. Houston TX Harris 150

Transocean Offshore 

Deepwater Drilling Inc.

Transocean, Inc. Houston TX Harris $28.80 200

Transocean Offshore 

Deepwater Drilling Inc.

Transocean, Inc. Houston TX Harris $0.59

Trinidad Drilling L P Trinidad Drilling 

Ltd.

Shreveport LA Caddo

Trinidad Drilling L P Trinidad Drilling 

Ltd.

Spring TX Harris $0.72 35

Yemen Henley Drilling 

Co.

Nabors Industries, 

Ltd.

Houston TX Harris $0.12 2

Blanks indicate that revenues and/or employment were not provided.
A-8

Table A-3 

Locations Offering Drilling Fluids in the Gulf of Mexico

Company Name Parent Company City State County/Parish 

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Ambar Lone Star 

Fluid Services

Patterson-UTI 

Energy, Inc.

Lafayette LA Lafayette $179.00 77 

Ambar Lone Star 

Fluid Services

Patterson-UTI 

Energy, Inc.

Franklin LA St. Mary $2.93 6

Ambar Lone Star 

Fluid Services

Patterson-UTI 

Energy, Inc.

Abbeville LA Vermilion $0.69 6 

Ambar Lone Star 

Fluid Services

Patterson-UTI 

Energy, Inc.

Cameron LA Cameron

Ambar Lone Star 

Fluid Services

Patterson-UTI 

Energy, Inc.

Golden 

Meadow 

LA Lafourche 

Ambar Lone Star 

Fluid Services

Patterson-UTI 

Energy, Inc.

Houma LA Terrebonne

Ambar Lone Star 

Fluid Services

Patterson-UTI 

Energy, Inc.

Galveston TX Galveston 11 

Ambar Lone Star 

Fluid Services

Patterson-UTI 

Energy, Inc.

Aransas 

Pass

TX Aransas

Baker Hughes 

Drilling Fluids

Baker Hughes, 

Inc.

Theodore AL Mobile $0.64 3 

Baker Hughes 

Drilling Fluids

Baker Hughes, 

Inc.

Cameron LA Cameron $0.81 9

Baker Hughes 

Drilling Fluids

Baker Hughes, 

Inc.

Dulac LA Terrebonne

Baker Hughes 

Drilling Fluids

Baker Hughes, 

Inc.

Golden 

Meadow 

LA Lafourche $9.53 45

Baker Hughes 

Drilling Fluids

Baker Hughes, 

Inc.

Houma LA Terrebonne $1.30 3 

Baker Hughes 

Drilling Fluids

Baker Hughes, 

Inc.

Lafayette LA Lafayette $11.98 100

Baker Hughes 

Drilling Fluids

Baker Hughes, 

Inc.

Lafayette LA Lafayette

Baker Hughes 

Drilling Fluids

Baker Hughes, 

Inc.

Metairie LA Jefferson

Baker Hughes 

Drilling Fluids

Baker Hughes, 

Inc.

Morgan 

City

LA St. Mary $5.30 25 

Baker Hughes 

Drilling Fluids

Baker Hughes, 

Inc.

New 

Orleans

LA Orleans $65.10 80

Baker Hughes 

Drilling Fluids

Baker Hughes, 

Inc.

Shreveport LA Caddo $10.58 13 

Baker Hughes 

Drilling Fluids

Baker Hughes, 

Inc.

Venice LA Plaquemines

Baker Hughes 

Drilling Fluids

Baker Hughes, 

Inc.

Pascagoula MS Jackson

Baker Hughes 

Drilling Fluids

Baker Hughes, 

Inc.

Aransas 

Pass

TX Aransas
A-9

Table A-3. Locations Offering Drilling Fluids in the Gulf of Mexico (continued). 

Company Name Parent Company City State County/Parish 

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Baker Hughes 

Drilling Fluids

Baker Hughes, 

Inc.

Corpus 

Christi 

TX Nueces $67.91 25

Baker Hughes 

Drilling Fluids

Baker Hughes, 

Inc.

Corpus 

Christi 

TX Nueces $6.07 17 

Baker Hughes 

Drilling Fluids

Baker Hughes, 

Inc.

Dayton TX Liberty $1.48 7

Baker Hughes 

Drilling Fluids

Baker Hughes, 

Inc.

Edinburg TX Hidalgo $5.41 10 

Baker Hughes 

Drilling Fluids

Baker Hughes, 

Inc.

Freeport TX Brazoria

Baker Hughes 

Drilling Fluids

Baker Hughes, 

Inc.

Galveston TX Galveston $0.22 2 

Baker Hughes 

Drilling Fluids

Baker Hughes, 

Inc.

Galveston TX Galveston

Baker Hughes 

Drilling Fluids

Baker Hughes, 

Inc.

Houston TX Harris $0.23 2 

Baker Hughes 

Drilling Fluids 

Baker Hughes, 

Inc.

Houston TX Harris

Baker Hughes 

Drilling Fluids

Baker Hughes, 

Inc.

Houston TX Harris $1.73 15 

Baker Hughes 

Drilling Fluids

Baker Hughes, 

Inc.

Houston TX Harris $1.96 17

Baker Hughes 

Drilling Fluids

Baker Hughes, 

Inc.

Houston TX Harris

Baker Hughes 

Drilling Fluids

Baker Hughes, 

Inc.

Houston TX Harris

Baker Hughes 

Drilling Fluids

Baker Hughes, 

Inc.

Houston TX Harris

Baker Hughes 

Drilling Fluids

Baker Hughes, 

Inc.

Houston TX Harris

Baker Hughes 

Drilling Fluids

Baker Hughes,

Inc.

Irving TX Dallas

Baker Hughes 

Drilling Fluids

Baker Hughes, 

Inc.

Port 

O'Connor

TX Calhoun

Baker Hughes 

Drilling Fluids

Baker Hughes, 

Inc.

Van Vleck TX Matagorda

Drilling Specialties 

Company LLC

Chevron Phillips 

Chemical Co LLC

Conroe TX Montgomery $3.88 34

Grinding & Sizing 

Company, Inc.

Smith 

International, Inc.

Houston TX Harris $0.16 3 

Halliburton Co. Bossier 

City

LA Bossier $40.69 50

Halliburton Co. Abbeville LA Vermilion $4.88 6 

Halliburton Co. Sulphur LA Calcasieu $6.07 17 

Halliburton Co. Edinburg TX Hidalgo $3.57 10 

Halliburton Co. Galveston TX Galveston $2.44 3 
A-10

Table A-3. Locations Offering Drilling Fluids in the Gulf of Mexico (continued). 

Company Name Parent Company City State County/Parish 

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Integrity Industries, 

Inc.

Smith 

International, Inc.

Kingsville TX Kleberg $65.36 23

Integrity Industries, 

Inc.

Smith 

International, Inc.

Conroe TX Montgomery $7.32 9 

Integrity Industries, 

Inc.

Smith 

International, Inc.

Victoria TX Victoria $1.07 3

LCS International Lafayette LA Lafayette $0.32 6 

Liquid Casing, Inc. Houston TX Harris $20.00 35 

Liquid Casing, Inc. Cypress TX Harris $0.11 2 

Lost Circulation 

Specialists

Lafayette LA Lafayette

Lost Circulation 

Specialists

Magnolia TX Montgomery 1

M-I SWACO Smith 

International, Inc.

Harvey LA Jefferson $2.30 20 

M-I SWACO Smith 

International, Inc.

Lafayette LA Lafayette $48.83 60

M-I SWACO Smith 

International, Inc.

Maurice LA Vermilion

M-I SWACO Smith 

International, Inc.

New 

Orleans

LA Orleans $14.65 18

Newpark Drilling 

Fluids, LLC

Newpark 

Resources, Inc.

Abbeville LA Vermilion $0.18 2 

Newpark Drilling 

Fluids, LLC

Newpark 

Resources, Inc.

Berwick LA St. Mary $1.63 2

Newpark Drilling 

Fluids, LLC

Newpark 

Resources, Inc.

New Iberia LA Iberia $20.34 25 

Newpark Drilling 

Fluids, LLC

Newpark 

Resources, Inc.

New 

Orleans

LA Orleans $3.26 4

Newpark Drilling 

Fluids, LLC

Newpark 

Resources, Inc.

Lafayette LA Lafayette $5.70 7 

Newpark Drilling 

Fluids, LLC

Newpark 

Resources, Inc.

Cameron LA Cameron $0.40 8

Newpark Drilling 

Fluids, LLC

Newpark 

Resources, Inc.

Venice LA Plaquemines $0.46 9 

Newpark Drilling 

Fluids, LLC

Newpark 

Resources, Inc.

Golden 

Meadow 

LA Lafourche

Newpark Drilling 

Fluids, LLC

Newpark 

Resources, Inc.

Lafayette LA Lafayette

Newpark Drilling 

Fluids, LLC

Newpark 

Resources, Inc.

Houston TX Harris $108.20 50

Newpark Drilling 

Fluids, LLC

Newpark 

Resources, Inc.

Freeport TX Brazoria

Newpark Drilling 

Fluids, LLC

Newpark 

Resources, Inc.

Galveston TX Galveston

Newpark Drilling 

Fluids, LLC

Newpark 

Resources, Inc.

San Leon TX Galveston
A-11

Table A-3. Locations Offering Drilling Fluids in the Gulf of Mexico (continued). 

Company Name Parent Company City State County/Parish 

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Newpark Drilling 

Fluids, LLC

Newpark 

Resources, Inc.

Dallas TX Dallas $4.07 5

Newpark Drilling 

Fluids, LLC

Newpark 

Resources, Inc.

Aransas 

Pass

TX Aransas

Newpark Drilling 

Fluids, LLC

Newpark 

Resources, Inc.

Houston TX Harris $8.14 10

Newpark Drilling 

Fluids, LLC

Newpark 

Resources, Inc.

Houston TX Harris

Setac Chemicals Lafayette LA Lafayette $0.65 3

Spirit Drilling & 

Completion Fluids, 

Ltd.

Lafayette LA Lafayette $1.60 21

Spirit Drilling & 

Completion Fluids, 

Ltd.

Houston TX Harris $37.63 78

Spirit Drilling & 

Completion Fluids, 

Ltd.

Corpus 

Christi 

TX Nueces

Sun Drilling 

Products Corp.

Belle 

Chasse

LA Plaquemines $2.70 30

Sun Drilling 

Products Corp.

Belle 

Chasse

LA Plaquemines 12 

TETRA 

Technologies Inc.

Lake 

Charles

LA Calcasieu $15.83 49

TETRA 

Technologies Inc.

The 

Woodlands 

TX Montgomery 150 

TETRA 

Technologies Inc.

Alice TX Jim Wells $36.62 45

TETRA 

Technologies Inc.

Aransas 

Pass

TX San Patricio $3.23 10 

Turbo-Chem 

International, Inc.

Scott LA Lafayette

Turbo-Chem 

International, Inc.

Corpus 

Christi 

TX Nueces $0.58 5 

Turbo-Chem 

International, Inc.

Houston TX Harris $0.58 5
A-12

Table A-4 

Locations Offering Drilling Tools and Supplies in the Gulf of Mexico

Company Name Parent Company City State

County/ 

Parish

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

A Varco Shaffer Co. National Oilwell 

Varco, Inc.

Broussard LA Lafayette $10.82 20 

A Varco Shaffer Co. National Oilwell 

Varco, Inc.

Houston TX Harris $9.60 51

A Varco Shaffer Co. National Oilwell 

Varco, Inc.

Houston TX Harris $8.67 20 

Acadiana Instruments 

Inc.

L E Simmons & 

Associates, Inc.

Broussard LA St. Martin $39.58 57

Access Oil Tools L E Simmons & 

Associates, Inc.

New Iberia LA Iberia $0.28 2 

Access Oil Tools L E Simmons & 

Associates, Inc.

Broussard LA Lafayette

Advance Manufacturing 

Technology, Inc.

L E Simmons & 

Associates, Inc.

Lake Charles LA Calcasieu $13.00 75 

Aker Solutions US Inc. Aker ASA Houston TX Harris 500

Aker Solutions US Inc. Aker ASA Katy TX Waller 150

Aker Solutions US Inc. Aker ASA Houston TX Harris 125

Baker Hughes Drilling 

Fluids 

Baker Hughes 

Incorporated

Abbeville LA Vermilion $1.70 10

Baker Hughes Oilfield 

Operations, Inc.

Baker Hughes 

Incorporated

Victoria TX Victoria $1.73 4 

Baker Hughes Oilfield 

Operations, Inc.

Baker Hughes 

Incorporated

Beaumont TX Jefferson $1.38 12

Baker Hughes Oilfield 

Operations, Inc.

Baker Hughes 

Incorporated

Edinburg TX Hidalgo $5.41 10 

Baker Oil Tools Baker Hughes 

Incorporated

Houston TX Harris $7.42 35

Bear Pump & Equipment, 

Inc.

National Oilwell 

Varco, Inc.

Houston TX Harris $6.00 10 

Bico Drilling Tools Inc. Broussard LA Lafayette $0.45 3

Bico Drilling Tools Inc. Houston TX Harris 30

Bilco Tools, Inc. T&T Investment 

Corp. 

Houma LA Terrebonne $13.45 25

Bilco Tools, Inc. T&T Investment 

Corp. 

Houma LA Terrebonne $0.85 4 

BJ Services Co. Lafayette LA Lafayette $17.27 150

BJ Services Co. Lafayette LA Lafayette $1.15 10

BJ Services Co. Houston TX Harris $4.50 300

BJ Services Co. Houston TX Harris $11.51 100

Boyd's Bit Service, Inc. Smith 

International Inc.

Broussard LA Lafayette $4.60 10

Boyd's Bit Service, Inc. Smith 

International Inc.

Alice TX Jim Wells $3.69 21 

Boyd's Bit Service, Inc. Smith 

International Inc.

Pearland TX Brazoria $0.88 5
A-13

Table A-4. Locations Offering Drilling Tools and Supplies in the Gulf of Mexico (continued). 

Company Name Parent Company City State

County/ 

Parish

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Canrig Drilling 

Technology Ltd.

Nabors Industries 

Ltd.

Magnolia TX Montgomery $9.30 100

Concentric Pipe & Tool 

Rentals

Superior Energy 

Services, Inc

Houma LA Terrebonne $5.10 20 

Concentric Pipe & Tool 

Rentals

Superior Energy 

Services, Inc

Broussard LA Lafayette $1.06 6

Concentric Pipe & Tool 

Rentals

Superior Energy 

Services, Inc

Broussard LA Lafayette $1.23 12 

Dyna-Drill Technologies, 

Inc.

Smith 

International Inc.

Houston TX Harris $17.70 160

Fluid Systems, Inc Harvey LA Jefferson $7.42 25 

Fluid Systems, Inc Houston TX Harris $2.17 5 

Forum Oilfield 

Technologies

L E Simmons & 

Associates, Inc.

Houston TX Harris $298.90 215 

Frank's Casing Crew & 

Rental Tools, Inc.

Lafayette LA Lafayette $15.53 440

Frank's Casing Crew & 

Rental Tools, Inc.

Lafayette LA Lafayette $10.55 60 

Frank's Casing Crew & 

Rental Tools, Inc.

New Iberia LA Iberia

Frank's Casing Crew & 

Rental Tools, Inc.

Houma LA Terrebonne $8.06 70 

Frank's Casing Crew & 

Rental Tools, Inc.

New Orleans LA Orleans $0.46 4

Frank's Casing Crew & 

Rental Tools, Inc.

Corpus Christi TX Nueces $17.59 100 

Gammaloy Holdings, LP National Oilwell 

Varco, Inc.

Houston TX Harris $9.80 55

General Marine Leasing 

LLC

Oil States 

International Inc.

Belle Chasse LA Plaquemines $19.96 76 

General Marine Leasing 

LLC

Oil States 

International Inc.

Belle Chasse LA Plaquemines $2.59 16

H B Rentals LLC Superior Energy 

Services, Inc.

Alice TX Jim Wells $16.23 30 

H B Rentals LLC Superior Energy 

Services, Inc.

Liverpool TX Brazoria $2.64 15

Halliburton Energy 

Services Inc.

Halliburton Co. Dulac LA Terrebonne $1.30 3 

Halliburton Energy 

Services Inc.

Halliburton Co. Golden 

Meadow 

LA Lafourche $6.07 14

Halliburton Energy 

Services Inc.

Halliburton Co. Grand Isle LA Jefferson $1.30 3 

Halliburton Energy 

Services Inc.

Halliburton Co. Lafayette LA Lafayette $10.84 25

Halliburton Energy 

Services Inc.

Halliburton Co. New Orleans LA Orleans $43.37 100 
A-14

Table A-4. Locations Offering Drilling Tools and Supplies in the Gulf of Mexico (continued). 

Company Name Parent Company City State

County/ 

Parish

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Halliburton Energy 

Services Inc.

Halliburton Co. Slidell LA Saint 

Tammany

$6.51 15

Halliburton Energy 

Services Inc.

Halliburton Co. Westlake LA Calcasieu $8.67 20 

Halliburton Energy 

Services Inc.

Halliburton Co. Corpus Christi TX Nueces $0.87 2

H-B Rentals LC Superior Energy 

Services, Inc.

Broussard LA Lafayette $14.10 83 

Helmerich & Payne, Inc. Gibson LA Terrebonne $2.64 15

International Snubbing 

Services, LLC

Superior Energy 

Services, Inc.

Arnaudville LA St. Landry $5.40 65

Ken Jer, Inc. Smith 

International Inc.

Humble TX Harris $1.20 15 

Knight Oil Tools, Inc. Lafayette LA Lafayette 100

Knight Oil Tools, Inc. Houma LA Terrebonne 2

Knight Oil Tools, Inc. Alice TX Jim Wells $2.11 12

Knight Oil Tools, Inc. Houston TX Harris $5.28 30

LeTourneau 

Technologies, Inc.

Rowan Co's, Inc. Houston TX Harris $9.30 100

Logan Oil Tools, Inc. Houston TX Harris $50.00 300 

Martin-Decker Totco Co. 

Inc.

National Oilwell 

Varco, Inc.

Houma LA Terrebonne $2.29 13 

M-I LLC Smith 

International Inc.

Dulac LA Terrebonne $2.71 5

M-I LLC Smith 

International Inc.

Minden LA Webster $4.33 8 

MSI Oilfield Products Filtrona PLC Houston TX Harris $4.1 65

National Oilwell Varco, 

Inc.

Amelia LA Saint Mary $4.20 45

National Oilwell Varco, 

Inc.

Broussard LA Iberia $5.41 10 

National Oilwell Varco, 

Inc.

Broussard LA Iberia $0.89 8

National Oilwell Varco, 

Inc.

Cameron LA Cameron $0.87 2 

National Oilwell Varco, 

Inc.

Gibson LA Terrebonne $6.51 15

National Oilwell Varco, 

Inc.

Harvey LA Jefferson $3.47 8 

National Oilwell Varco, 

Inc.

Lafayette LA Lafayette $4.87 9

National Oilwell Varco, 

Inc.

Scott LA Lafayette $4.24 20 

National Oilwell Varco, 

Inc.

Lake Charles LA Calcasieu $2.17 5

National Oilwell Varco, 

Inc.

Morgan City LA St. Mary $3.47 8 
A-15

Table A-4. Locations Offering Drilling Tools and Supplies in the Gulf of Mexico (continued). 

Company Name Parent Company City State

County/ 

Parish

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

National Oilwell Varco, 

Inc.

New Iberia LA Iberia $4.57 26

National Oilwell Varco, 

Inc.

New Iberia LA Iberia $10.84 25 

National Oilwell Varco, 

Inc.

Houston TX Harris 15

National Oilwell Varco, 

Inc.

Conroe TX Montgomery $74.16 350 

National Oilwell Varco, 

Inc.

Corpus Christi TX Nueces $3.47 8

National Oilwell Varco, 

Inc.

Corpus Christi TX Nueces $2.64 15 

National Oilwell Varco, 

Inc.

Galena Park TX Harris $10.84 25

National Oilwell Varco, 

Inc.

Houston TX Harris $8.67 20 

National Oilwell Varco, 

Inc.

Houston TX Harris $7.42 35

National Oilwell Varco, 

Inc.

Houston TX Harris $4.45 21 

National Oilwell Varco, 

Inc.

Houston TX Harris $52.97 250

National Oilwell Varco, 

Inc.

Houston TX Harris $6.36 30 

National Oilwell Varco, 

Inc.

Houston TX Harris $7.81 18

National Oilwell Varco, 

Inc.

Houston TX Harris $43.37 100 

National Oilwell Varco, 

Inc.

Houston TX Harris $12.71 60

National Oilwell Varco, 

Inc.

Houston TX Harris $8.67 20 

National Oilwell Varco, 

Inc.

Houston TX Harris $6.36 30

National Oilwell Varco, 

Inc.

Houston TX Harris $6.51 15 

National Oilwell Varco, 

Inc.

Rosenberg TX Fort Bend $15.89 75

National Oilwell Varco, 

Inc.

Sugar Land TX Fort Bend $14.83 70 

National Oilwell Varco, 

Inc.

The 

Woodlands 

TX Montgomery $16.45 120

National Oilwell Varco, 

Inc.

Victoria TX Victoria $3.90 9 
A-16

Table A-4. Locations Offering Drilling Tools and Supplies in the Gulf of Mexico (continued). 

Company Name Parent Company City State

County/ 

Parish

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

National-Oilwell Varco, 

LP

National Oilwell 

Varco, Inc.

Broussard LA Lafayette $6.51 37

National-Oilwell Varco, 

LP

National Oilwell 

Varco, Inc.

Covington LA Saint 

Tammany

$13.01 30 

National-Oilwell Varco, 

LP

National Oilwell 

Varco, Inc.

Houma LA Terrebonne $4.77 11

National-Oilwell Varco, 

LP

National Oilwell 

Varco, Inc.

Lafayette LA Lafayette $13.01 30 

National-Oilwell Varco, 

LP

National Oilwell 

Varco, Inc.

Houston TX Harris $70.50 310

National-Oilwell Varco, 

LP

National Oilwell 

Varco, Inc.

Houston TX Harris $23.86 55 

National-Oilwell Varco, 

LP

National Oilwell 

Varco, Inc.

Pearland TX Brazoria $2.60 6

Oceanex Services Int'l, 

Inc.

Houston TX Harris $16.03 15 

Oil States Industries Inc. Oil States 

International Inc.

Houston TX Harris $13.71 100

Oil States Industries Inc. Oil States 

International Inc.

Houston TX Harris $1.19 10 

Oil States International 

Inc.

Houston TX Harris 50

Oil Stop 1 LLC Superior Energy 

Services, Inc.

Harvey LA Jefferson $0.94 12 

Patterson Services, Inc. RPC Inc. Houma LA Terrebonne $24.10 40

Patterson Services, Inc. RPC Inc. Houma LA Terrebonne $5.45 31

Patterson Services, Inc. RPC Inc. Lafayette LA Lafayette $3.52 20

Patterson Services, Inc. RPC Inc. Houston TX Harris $2.11 12

Patterson Services, Inc. RPC Inc. Houston TX Harris $13.19 75

Rattler Tools, Inc. Broussard LA Lafayette $0.13 2

Ray Oil Tool Company, 

Inc.

Broussard LA Lafayette

Reamco Inc. Broussard LA Lafayette $5.96 48 

Reed Tool Co. National Oilwell 

Varco, Inc.

Shreveport LA Caddo $0.75 10 

Reed Tool Co. National Oilwell 

Varco, Inc.

Houston TX Harris $42.38 200

Reedhycalog, LP National Oilwell 

Varco, Inc.

Conroe TX Montgomery $1.40 9 

Reedhycalog, LP National Oilwell 

Varco, Inc.

Haughton TX Bossier $1.30 8

Reedhycalog, LP National Oilwell 

Varco, Inc.

Pharr TX Hidalgo $0.99 2 

Reedhycalog, LP National Oilwell 

Varco, Inc.

Nome TX Jefferson $0.32 2

Ross Hill Controls Corp. National Oilwell 

Varco, Inc.

Houston TX Harris $35.70 230 
A-17

Table A-4. Locations Offering Drilling Tools and Supplies in the Gulf of Mexico (continued). 

Company Name Parent Company City State

County/ 

Parish

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Schooner Petroleum 

Services Inc.

Oil States 

International Inc.

New Iberia LA Iberia $1.06 6

Schooner Petroleum 

Services Inc.

Oil States 

International Inc.

Houston TX Harris $10.90 55 

Schooner Petroleum 

Services Inc.

Oil States 

International Inc.

Corpus Christi TX Nueces $2.11 12

Smith International, Inc. New Iberia LA Iberia $4.34 10 

Smith International, Inc. New Orleans LA Orleans $5.20 12 

Smith International, Inc. Houston TX Harris 550 

Smith International, Inc. Alice TX Jim Wells $12.14 28 

Smith International, Inc. Corpus Christi TX Nueces $1.73 4 

Smith International, Inc. Victoria TX Victoria $0.87 2 

Sooner Inc. Oil States 

International Inc.

Houston TX Harris $7.10 2 

Stabil Drill Specialties 

LLC

Superior Energy 

Services, Inc

Youngsville LA Lafayette $1.58 9

Stabil Drill Specialties 

LLC

Superior Energy 

Services, Inc

Corpus Christi TX Nueces $1.76 10 

Stabil Drill Specialties 

LLC

Superior Energy 

Services, Inc

Houston TX Harris $1.58 9

Stewart & Stevenson 

Power Products LLC

Parman Capital 

Group LLC

Dallas TX Dallas $37.35 200 

Subsurface Tools, Inc. Superior Energy 

Services, Inc.

Morgan City LA St. Mary $7.60 45

Subsurface Tools, Inc. Superior Energy 

Services, Inc.

New Iberia LA Iberia $2.11 12 

Superior Energy 

Services, Inc.

New Orleans LA Orleans 84

Superior Energy 

Services, Inc.

Belle Chasse LA Plaquemines $35.18 200 

Tai Holding Inc. 

(Maverick Tube)

Tenaris SA Houston TX Harris $26.70 360

Tenaris Coiled Tubes 

LLC

Tenaris SA Houston TX Harris $14.20 123 

Tesco Corp. Houston TX Harris $61.80 100

Tesco Services Inc. Tesco Corp. Houston TX Harris $26.70 276

Tesco Services Inc. Tesco Corp. El Campo TX Wharton $2.64 15

Thomas Energy Services, 

Inc.

Smith 

International Inc.

New Iberia LA Iberia $11.60 50

Thomas Energy Services, 

Inc.

Smith 

International Inc.

Corpus Christi TX Nueces $3.52 20 

Tripoint Energy Services, 

Inc.

L E Simmons & 

Associates, Inc.

Spring TX Harris $9.11 44

Tripoint Energy Services, 

Inc.

L E Simmons & 

Associates, Inc.

Victoria TX Victoria $7.39 42 

TSC Offshore Group 

Limited

Houston TX Harris
A-18

Table A-4. Locations Offering Drilling Tools and Supplies in the Gulf of Mexico (continued). 

Company Name Parent Company City State

County/ 

Parish

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

TSC Offshore Group 

Limited

Houston TX Harris

Patriot Mechanical 

Handling, Inc.

TSC Offshore 

Group Limited

Houston TX Harris $5.00 50 

TSC Manufacturing and 

Supply, LLC

TSC Offshore 

Group Limited

Houston TX Harris $0.77 13

V&M Tube-Alloy, LP National Oilwell 

Varco, Inc.

Houma LA Terrebonne 115 

V&M Tube-Alloy, LP National Oilwell 

Varco, Inc.

Houston TX Harris $26.90 140

Vanoil Completions LLC Broussard LA Lafayette $1.20 15 

Varco Shaffer Inc. National Oilwell 

Varco, Inc.

Houston TX Harris $63.40 475 

Varco Shaffer Inc. National Oilwell 

Varco, Inc.

Alice TX Jim Wells $1.48 7

Varel International Ind, 

LP

Arcapita Inc. Brownsville TX Cameron $0.87 2 

Wagner Instrumentation 

2000 Inc.

National Oilwell 

Varco, Inc.

Houston TX Harris $0.69 9

Wilson Industries, LP Smith 

International Inc.

Tampa FL Hillsborough $3.18 15 

Wilson Industries, LP Smith 

International Inc.

Houma LA Terrebonne $2.04 17

Wilson Industries, LP Smith 

International Inc.

Lafayette LA Lafayette $4.33 8 

Wilson Industries, LP Smith 

International Inc.

Shreveport LA Caddo $2.33 11

Wilson Industries, LP Smith 

International Inc.

Venice LA Plaquemines $3.91 8 

Wilson Industries, LP Smith 

International Inc.

Westlake LA Calcasieu $1.48 7

Wilson Industries, LP Smith 

International Inc.

Houston TX Harris $330.40 400 

Wilson Industries, LP Smith 

International Inc.

Channelview TX Harris $1.30 3

Wilson Industries, LP Smith 

International Inc.

Edinburg TX Hidalgo $4.34 10 

Wilson Industries, LP Smith 

International Inc.

Freeport TX Brazoria $4.77 11

Wilson Industries, LP Smith 

International Inc.

Houston TX Harris $8.67 20 

Wilson Industries, LP Smith 

International Inc.

Pharr TX Hidalgo $2.93 6

Workstrings LLC Superior Energy 

Services, Inc

Broussard LA Saint Martin $2.90 30 

Totals $2,242.85 10,660
A-19

Table A-5 

Locations Offering Mud Logging Services in the Gulf of Mexico

Company Name Parent Company City State County 

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Continental 

Laboratories, Inc.

Houston TX Harris $9.00 50 

Continental 

Laboratories, Inc.

Alice TX Jim Wells

Diversified Well 

Logging, Inc.

Reserve LA St. John the 

Baptist

$7.80 125 

Diversified Well 

Logging, Inc.

Corpus 

Christi 

TX Nueces $0.27 5

Geo-Lab, Inc. Hockley TX Harris $2.70 50 

International 

Logging, Inc.

Weatherford 

International, Ltd.

Houston TX Harris $2.50 10 

Petroleum Center 

Inc.

Thibodaux LA Lafourche $1.30 25

Petro-Log 

International, Inc.

Petro-Log, Inc. Sugar Land TX Fort Bend $1.84 16 

Petro-Log, Inc. Lafayette LA Lafayette $0.56 45

PRECISION Well 

Logging, Inc.

Houston TX Harris $6.66 47

Pro-Log, Inc. New Iberia LA Iberia $3.10 19 

Stratagraph, Inc. Scott LA Lafayette $8.90 115 

The Mudlogging 

Company USA, L.P.

Houston TX Harris $16.74 145 

Weatherford 

International, Ltd.

Houston TX Harris $7.83

Totals $69.20 652 
A-20

Table A-6 

Locations Offering MWD Services in the Gulf of Mexico

Company Name Parent Company City State County 

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Advantage R&D, 

Inc.

Weatherford 

International, Ltd.

Houston TX Harris $9.30 100 

Advantage R&D, 

Inc.

Weatherford 

International, Ltd.

Houston TX Harris

Allis Chalmers 

Energy, Inc.

Houston TX Harris 15 

Cudd Pressure 

Control Inc.

RPC, Inc. Lafayette LA Lafayette $4.03 35

Cudd Pressure 

Control Inc.

RPC, Inc. Houma LA Terrebonne $7.14 62 

Cudd Pressure 

Control Inc.

RPC, Inc. Houma LA Terrebonne $6.91 60

Cudd Pressure 

Control Inc.

RPC, Inc. Houston TX Harris $230.00 2 

Cudd Pressure 

Control Inc.

RPC, Inc. Corpus 

Christi 

TX Nueces $6.91 60

Gyrodata, Inc. Houston TX Harris 100 

Gyrodata, Inc. Lafayette LA Lafayette $5.76 50 

INTEQ Baker Hughes Broussard LA Lafayette $37.41 325 

INTEQ Baker Hughes Broussard LA Lafayette

INTEQ Baker Hughes New Orleans LA Orleans $65.10 80 

INTEQ Baker Hughes New Orleans LA Orleans

INTEQ Baker Hughes Irving TX Dallas

INTEQ Baker Hughes Houston TX Harris $33.35 232 

INTEQ Baker Hughes Houston TX Harris 

International 

Logging 

Weatherford 

International, Ltd.

Houston TX Harris $2.50 10 

K&M Technology 

Group

Schlumberger 

Ltd./NV

The 

Woodlands 

TX Montgomery $1.50 15

Measurement 

While Drilling 

(MWD) Services

Youngsville LA Lafayette

MS Energy 

Services

Conroe TX Montgomery

Pajak USA Ltd. Pajak 

Engineering Ltd.

Houston TX Harris $0.52 1

Pathfinder Energy 

Services, Inc.

Smith 

International, Inc.

Lafayette LA Lafayette $24.17 210 

Pathfinder Energy 

Services, Inc.

Smith 

International, Inc.

New Orleans LA Orleans $0.92 8

Pathfinder Energy 

Services, Inc.

Smith 

International, Inc.

Houston TX Harris $48.80 175 

Pathfinder Energy 

Services, Inc.

Smith 

International, Inc.

Houston TX Harris
A-21

Table A-6. Locations Offering MWD Services in the Gulf of Mexico (continued). 

Company Name Parent Company City State County 

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Pathfinder Energy 

Services, Inc.

Smith 

International, Inc.

Houston TX Harris

Pathfinder Energy 

Services, Inc.

Smith 

International, Inc.

Corpus 

Christi 

TX Nueces $0.42 12 

Prime Directional 

Systems LLC

Broussard LA Lafayette $1.27 25

Prime Directional 

Systems LLC

Houston TX Harris $0.43 3 

Ryan Energy 

Technologies USA

Nabors Industries 

Ltd.

Lafayette LA Lafayette $0.29 2

Ryan Energy 

Technologies USA

Nabors Industries 

Ltd.

Houston TX Harris $7.70 12 

Schlumberger 

Technology 

Corporation

Schlumberger NV Youngsville LA Lafayette $11.51 100

Scientific Drilling 

International 

Lafayette LA Lafayette $6.91 60

Scientific Drilling 

International 

Houston TX Harris 55 

Scientific Drilling 

International 

Houston TX Harris

Slider LLC Houston TX Harris $1.00 4 

Sperry Drilling 

Services

Halliburton Co. Houston TX Harris $0.11 2 

Sperry Drilling 

Services

Halliburton Co. The 

Woodlands 

TX Montgomery

Weatherford U.S., 

L.P.

Weatherford 

International, Ltd.

New Orleans LA Orleans $4.11 30 

Weatherford U.S., 

L.P.

Weatherford 

International, Ltd.

Covington LA St. Tammany

Weatherford U.S., 

L.P.

Weatherford 

International, Ltd.

Houston TX Harris $156.00 300 

Weatherford U.S., 

L.P.

Weatherford 

International, Ltd.

Houston TX Harris

Weatherford U.S., 

L.P.

Weatherford 

International, Ltd.

Houston TX Harris

Weatherford U.S., 

L.P.

Weatherford 

International, Ltd.

Houston TX Harris

Wellbore 

Navigation, Inc.

Houston TX Harris $0.75 5 

Totals $674.82 2,150
A-22

Table A-7 

Locations Offering Cementing Services in the Gulf of Mexico

Company Name Parent Company City State County 

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

BJ Services Berwick LA St. Mary

BJ Services Cameron LA Cameron $11.51 100 

BJ Services Crowley LA Acadia $11.86 103 

BJ Services Dulac LA Terrebonne

BJ Services Fourchon LA Lafourche $0.58 5 

BJ Services Houma LA Terrebonne $23.02 200 

BJ Services Houma LA Terrebonne $1.38 12

BJ Services Lafayette LA Lafayette $17.23 150 

BJ Services Lafayette LA Lafayette

BJ Services New Orleans LA Orleans $0.92 8 

BJ Services Venice LA Plaquemines $0.23 2 

BJ Services Aransas Pass TX Jefferson $11.51 100 

BJ Services Freeport TX Brazoria $11.51 100

BJ Services Galveston TX Galveston $11.51 100 

BJ Services Liberty TX Liberty $3.45 30 

BJ Services Port O'Connor TX Calhoun

BJ Services Sabine Pass TX Jefferson

BJ Services Victoria TX Victoria $6.68 58 

CSI 

Technologies

Superior Energy 

Services, Inc.

Houston TX Harris

Hub City 

Industries, Inc.

Lafayette LA Lafayette $2.70 50

Liner Tools LC Pearland TX Brazoria

Totals $114.09 1,018 
A-23

Table A-8 

Locations Offering Formation Evaluation Services in the Gulf of Mexico

Company Name Parent Company City State County 

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Baker Atlas Baker Hughes, Inc. Broussard LA Lafayette $12.66 110 

Baker Atlas Baker Hughes, Inc. Houma LA Terrebonne $1.38 12 

Baker Atlas Baker Hughes, Inc. New Orleans LA Orleans $0.05 2 

Baker Atlas Baker Hughes, Inc. Shreveport LA Caddo $10.58 13 

Baker Atlas Baker Hughes, Inc. Houston TX Harris $9.70 5 

Baker Atlas Baker Hughes, Inc. Alice TX Jim Wells $8.06 70 

Baker Atlas Baker Hughes, Inc. Alvin TX Brazoria

Baker Atlas Baker Hughes, Inc. Corpus 

Christi 

TX Nueces $0.46 4 

Baker Atlas Baker Hughes, Inc. Houston TX Harris $1.96 17

Baker Atlas Baker Hughes, Inc. Houston TX Harris

Baker Atlas Baker Hughes, Inc. Irving TX Dallas

Baker Atlas Baker Hughes, Inc. Pearland TX Brazoria $9.21 80

Baker Atlas Baker Hughes, Inc. Victoria TX Victoria $3.22 28

Bronco Oilfield 

Services

RPC, Inc. Broussard LA Lafayette $0.27 5

Bronco Oilfield 

Services

RPC, Inc. Lafayette LA Lafayette

Bronco Oilfield 

Services

RPC, Inc. Corpus 

Christi 

TX Nueces

CETCO Oilfield 

Services Co.

AMCOL 

International 

Corporation

New Orleans LA Orleans $20.80 159 

CETCO Oilfield 

Services Co.

AMCOL 

International 

Corporation

Broussard LA Lafayette $4.35 60 

CETCO Oilfield 

Services Co.

AMCOL 

International 

Corporation

Houston TX Harris $0.49 5 

Computalog USA, 

Inc.

Weatherford 

International Ltd.

Alice TX Jim Wells

Computalog USA, 

Inc.

Weatherford 

International Ltd.

Rosenberg TX Fort Bend

Core Laboratories 

LP 

Core Laboratories 

NV

Sulphur LA Calcasieu $1.04 9 

Core Laboratories 

LP 

Core Laboratories 

NV

Houston TX Harris 450

Core Laboratories 

LP 

Core Laboratories 

NV

Corpus 

Christi 

TX Nueces $0.23 2 

Core Laboratories 

LP 

Core Laboratories 

NV

Dallas TX Dallas $1.50 13

Core Laboratories 

LP 

Core Laboratories 

NV

Houston TX Harris $2.30 20 

Core Petrophysics, 

Inc.

Core Laboratories 

NV

Broussard LA Lafayette $0.81 7
A-24

Table A-8. Locations Offering Formation Evaluation Services in the Gulf of Mexico (continued). 

Company Name Parent Company City State County 

2007 

Revenues

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Core Petrophysics, 

Inc.

Core Laboratories 

NV

New Orleans LA Orleans $0.23 2

Core Petrophysics, 

Inc.

Core Laboratories 

NV

Houston TX Harris $2.00 16 

Cudd Pressure 

Control, Inc.

RPC, Inc. Houma LA Terrebonne $7.14 62

Cudd Pressure 

Control, Inc.

RPC, Inc. Houma LA Terrebonne $6.91 60 

Cudd Pressure 

Control, Inc.

RPC, Inc. Lafayette LA Lafayette $4.03 35

Cudd Pressure 

Control, Inc.

RPC, Inc. Houston TX Harris $97.49 2 

Cudd Pressure 

Control, Inc.

RPC, Inc. Corpus 

Christi 

TX Nueces $6.91 60

eProduction 

Solutions, Inc.

Weatherford 

International Ltd.

Kingwood TX Harris $28.30 90 

Expro Americas, Inc. Expro International 

Group PLC

Broussard LA Lafayette $5.99 52

Expro Americas, Inc. Expro International 

Group PLC

Alice TX Jim Wells 1 

Expro Americas, Inc. Expro International 

Group PLC

Dallas TX Dallas

Expro Americas, Inc. Expro International 

Group PLC

Houston TX Harris $4.40 50 

Expro Americas, Inc. Expro International 

Group PLC

Mont Belvieu TX Chambers

Expro Americas, 

LLC

Expro International 

Group PLC

Houston TX Harris

Geoservices Inc. The Geoservices 

Group

Houston TX Harris $12.00 10

Geoservices Inc. The Geoservices 

Group

Houston TX Harris

Gray Wireline 

Service, Inc.

Gray Energy 

Services LLC

Youngsville LA Lafayette $2.07 18

Integrated 

Production Services

Complete 

Production Services

New Orleans LA Orleans

Integrated 

Production Services

Complete 

Production Services

Broussard LA Lafayette $17.59 100

Integrated 

Production Services

Complete 

Production Services

Houston TX Harris 20 

MGM Well Services, 

Inc.

Complete 

Production Services

Corpus 

Christi 

TX Nueces $1.30 27

Pacific Process 

Systems, Inc.

Houston TX Harris $1.04 9 

Parchman Oilfield 

Services, Inc.

Complete 

Production Services

Edinburg TX Hidalgo $2.70 50
A-25

Table A-8. Locations Offering Formation Evaluation Services in the Gulf of Mexico (continued). 

Company Name Parent Company City State County 

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Parchman Operating 

Co. LP

Complete 

Production Services

Victoria TX Victoria $30.30 500

Pencor Reservoir 

Fluid Specialists, 

Inc.

Core Laboratories 

NV

Broussard LA Lafayette $2.80 52 

PowerWell Services Expro International 

Group PLC

Cypress TX Harris $23.15 100 

PowerWell Services Expro International 

Group PLC

Houston TX Harris $0.37 6

Pro Technics 

International, Inc.

Core Laboratories 

NV

Houston TX Harris $6.60 30 

Production Wireline 

& Cased Hole 

Services Group LLC 

The Geoservices 

Group

Broussard LA Lafayette $1.50 31

Reservoir Data 

Systems, Inc.

Sugar Land TX Fort Bend $0.26 4

Schlumberger Com1 

D077 

Schlumberger NV Houma LA Terrebonne $0.25 5 

Schlumberger 

Technology Corp 

Schlumberger NV Belle Chasse LA Plaquemines $0.69 15

Schlumberger 

Technology Corp 

Schlumberger NV Houma LA Terrebonne $34.53 300 

Schlumberger 

Technology Corp 

Schlumberger NV Houma LA Terrebonne $10.94 95

Schlumberger 

Technology Corp 

Schlumberger NV Lafayette LA Lafayette $5.76 50 

Schlumberger 

Technology Corp 

Schlumberger NV Larose LA Lafourche $9.21 80

Schlumberger 

Technology Corp 

Schlumberger NV New Orleans LA Orleans $7.25 63 

Schlumberger 

Technology Corp 

Schlumberger NV Houston TX Harris

Schlumberger 

Technology Corp 

Schlumberger NV Webster TX Harris $8.63 75 

Scientific 

Microsystems, Inc.

Complete 

Production Services

Waller TX Waller $2.00 10

Southern Wireline 

Service, Inc.

Gray Energy 

Services LLC

Youngsville LA Lafayette $2.07 18 

Stric-Lan Co's Corp. Duson LA Lafayette 60

Stric-Lan Co's Corp. Houston TX Harris $0.35 3

Superior Energy 

Services

Broussard LA Lafayette

Superior Energy 

Services

Harvey LA Jefferson

Superior Energy 

Services

Alvin TX Brazoria
A-26

Table A-8. Locations Offering Formation Evaluation Services in the Gulf of Mexico (continued). 

Company Name Parent Company City State County 

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Superior Energy 

Services

Broussard LA Lafayette

Superior Energy 

Services

Harvey LA Jefferson

Superior Energy 

Services

Alvin TX Brazoria

T&P Well Testers of 

Lafayette, Inc.

Broussard LA Lafayette $0.84 17 

Tetra Applied 

Technologies, Inc.

TETRA 

Technologies, Inc.

Broussard LA Lafayette $3.45 30

Tetra Applied 

Technologies, Inc.

TETRA 

Technologies, Inc.

Houston TX Harris $14.00 6 

Tetra Applied 

Technologies, Inc.

TETRA 

Technologies, Inc.

Edinburg TX Hidalgo $4.83 42

Tetra Applied 

Technologies, Inc.

TETRA 

Technologies, Inc.

Victoria TX Victoria $6.33 55 

TETRA 

Technologies, Inc.

Cameron LA Cameron $8.40 73

TETRA 

Technologies, Inc.

Golden 

Meadow 

LA Lafourche $0.92 8 

TETRA 

Technologies, Inc.

Houma LA Terrebonne $8.06 70

TETRA 

Technologies, Inc.

Lafayette LA Lafayette $2.53 22 

TETRA 

Technologies, Inc.

Alice TX Jim Wells $0.46 4

TETRA 

Technologies, Inc.

Victoria TX Victoria $1.38 12 

Triton Wireline 

Services, Inc.

Complete 

Production Services

Alice TX Jim Wells $5.70 41

Warrior Energy 

Services

Superior Energy 

Services, Inc.

Broussard LA Lafayette

Warrior Energy 

Services

Superior Energy 

Services, Inc.

Sibley LA Webster $1.44 12

Warrior Energy 

Services

Superior Energy 

Services, Inc.

Gray LA Terrebonne $4.60 40 

Warrior Energy 

Services

Superior Energy 

Services, Inc.

New Iberia LA Iberia

Warrior Energy 

Services

Superior Energy 

Services, Inc.

Houma LA Terrebonne

Warrior Energy 

Services

Superior Energy 

Services, Inc.

Shreveport LA Caddo

Warrior Energy 

Services

Superior Energy 

Services, Inc.

Rosharon TX Brazoria $2.30 20 

Weatherford U.S., 

LP

Weatherford 

International Ltd.

Broussard LA Lafayette

Weatherford U.S., 

LP

Weatherford 

International Ltd.

Broussard LA Lafayette $1.73 15 
A-27

Table A-8. Locations Offering Formation Evaluation Services in the Gulf of Mexico (continued). 

Company Name Parent Company City State County 

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Weatherford U.S., 

LP

Weatherford 

International Ltd.

Broussard LA Lafayette

Weatherford U.S., 

LP

Weatherford 

International Ltd.

Houma LA Terrebonne

Weatherford U.S., 

LP

Weatherford 

International Ltd.

Shreveport LA Caddo

Weatherford U.S., 

LP

Weatherford 

International Ltd.

Pearland TX Brazoria $5.28 30 

Weatherford U.S., 

LP

Weatherford 

International Ltd.

Robstown TX Nueces $4.80 35

Welltec, Inc. Welltec A/S Houma LA Terrebonne

Welltec, Inc. Welltec A/S Houston TX Harris $1.30 19 

Wood Group 

Logging Services

John Wood Group 

PLC

Metairie LA Jefferson

Wood Group 

Logging Services

John Wood Group 

PLC

Broussard LA Lafayette

Wood Group 

Logging Services

John Wood Group 

PLC

Shreveport LA Caddo 

Wood Group 

Logging Services

John Wood Group 

PLC

Houma LA Terrebonne

Wood Group 

Logging Services

John Wood Group 

PLC

Houston TX Harris

Wood Group 

Logging Services 

John Wood Group 

PLC

Victoria TX Victoria

Wood Group 

Logging Services

John Wood Group 

PLC

Pearland TX Brazoria

Wood Group 

Logging Services

John Wood Group 

PLC

Houston TX Harris

Wood Group 

Logging Services

John Wood Group 

PLC

Corpus 

Christi 

TX Nueces

Wood Group 

Production Testing

John Wood Group 

PLC

El Campo TX Wharton

Wood Group 

Wireline Services

John Wood Group 

PLC

Broussard LA Lafayette

Wood Group 

Wireline Services

John Wood Group 

PLC

Broussard LA Lafayette

Wood Group 

Wireline Services

John Wood Group 

PLC

Alice TX Jim Wells

Wood Group 

Wireline Services

John Wood Group 

PLC

Edinburg TX Hidalgo $0.27 5

Wood Group 

Wireline Services

John Wood Group 

PLC

El Campo TX Wharton

Wood Group 

Wireline Services

John Wood Group 

PLC

Houston TX Harris $30.30 20

Totals $544.75 3,808 
A-28

Table A-9 

Locations Offering Completion Services in the Gulf of Mexico

Company Name Parent Company City State County 

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Baker Oil Tools Baker Hughes, Inc. Lafayette LA Lafayette $1.73 15 

Baker Oil Tools Baker Hughes, Inc. Lake 

Charles

LA Calcasieu $1.27 11 

Baker Oil Tools Baker Hughes, Inc. New Iberia LA Iberia $3.45 30

BJ Services Co. Houston TX Harris $2.88 25

BJ Services Co. Houston TX Harris $11.51 100

Bronco Oilfield 

Services

RPC, Inc. Broussard LA Lafayette $0.27 5

Bronco Oilfield 

Services

RPC, Inc. Lafayette LA Lafayette

Bronco Oilfield 

Services

RPC, Inc. Corpus 

Christi 

TX Nueces

Chet Morrison 

Well Services

Chet Morrison 

Contractors, Inc.

Houma LA Terrebonne

Chet Morrison 

Well Services

Chet Morrison 

Contractors, Inc.

Houston TX Harris

Combined 

Technical 

Services

Harvey LA Jefferson $1.50 32 

Concentric Pipe 

& Tool Rentals

Superior Energy 

Services, Inc.

Houma LA Terrebonne $5.10 20 

Concentric Pipe 

& Tool Rentals

Superior Energy 

Services, Inc.

New Iberia LA Iberia $1.06 6

Concentric Pipe 

& Tool Rentals

Superior Energy 

Services, Inc.

Harvey LA Jefferson $0.87 7 

Concentric Pipe 

& Tool Rentals

Superior Energy 

Services, Inc.

Houston TX Harris

Hydraulic Well 

Control, Inc.

Boots & Coots 

International Well 

Control, Inc.

Houma LA Terrebonne $2.00 

Key Energy 

Services

Lafayette LA Lafayette $14.40 100 

Key Energy 

Services

Alice TX Jim Wells $2.88 20

Key Energy 

Services

Victoria TX Victoria $9.44 82 

Key Energy 

Services

Liberty TX Liberty $6.33 55

Key Energy 

Services

Sour Lake TX Hardin

M-I SWACO Smith International, 

Inc.

Harvey LA Jefferson $2.30 20

M-I SWACO Smith International, 

Inc.

Lafayette LA Lafayette $48.83 60 
A-29

Table A-9. Locations Offering Completion Services in the Gulf of Mexico (continued). 

Company Name Parent Company City State County 

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

M-I SWACO Smith International, 

Inc.

Maurice LA Vermilion $1.10 5

M-I SWACO Smith International, 

Inc.

New 

Orleans

LA Orleans $14.65 18 

M-I SWACO Smith International, 

Inc.

Corpus 

Christi 

TX Nueces

M-I SWACO Smith International, 

Inc.

Corpus 

Christi 

TX Nueces $8.63 75 

M-I SWACO Smith International, 

Inc.

Dallas TX Dallas

M-I SWACO Smith International, 

Inc.

Houston TX Harris $1.38 12 

M-I SWACO Smith International, 

Inc.

Houston TX Harris $674.90 1,700

M-I SWACO Smith International, 

Inc.

Liberty TX Liberty $4.03 35 

National Oilwell 

Varco Inc.

Houston TX Harris

National Oilwell 

Varco Inc.

Houston TX Harris

Pajak USA, Ltd. Pajak Engineering Ltd. Houston TX Harris $0.52 1

Red Spider 

Technology AS

Houston TX Harris

Smith Services Smith International, 

Inc.

Minden LA Webster 5 

Smith Services Smith International, 

Inc.

Corpus 

Christi 

TX Nueces

Smith Services Smith International, 

Inc.

El Campo TX Wharton

Smith Services Smith International, 

Inc.

Silsbee TX Hardin

Spartan 

Offshore 

Drilling LLC

Metairie LA Jefferson $0.46 8 

Spartan 

Offshore 

Drilling LLC

Broussard LA Lafayette $0.25 3 

Totals $821.74 2,450 
A-30

Table A-10 

Locations Offering Fishing Tools and Services in the Gulf of Mexico

Company Name

Parent 

Company City State County 

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Combined Technical 

Services

Harvey LA Jefferson $1.50 32 

Dishman & Bennett 

Specialty Co, Inc.

Houma LA Terrebonne $0.33 9

Dishman & Bennett 

Specialty Co, Inc.

Lafayette LA Lafayette $1.06 6 

Dishman & Bennett 

Specialty Co, Inc.

Sibley LA Webster $0.51 5

Knight Fishing Services Knight 

Oil Tools, 

Inc.

Lafayette LA Lafayette $1.04 9 

Knight Fishing Services Knight 

Oil Tools, 

Inc.

Alice TX Jim Wells $0.09 2 

Knight Fishing Services Knight 

Oil Tools, 

Inc.

Houston TX Harris $5.28 30 

Logan Oil Tools, Inc. Broussard LA Lafayette $0.48 3 

Logan Oil Tools, Inc. Houma LA Terrebonne $0.10 2 

Logan Oil Tools, Inc. Houston TX Harris $50.00 300 

Logan Oil Tools, Inc. Alice TX Jim Wells $0.55 4 

Totals $60.94 402 
A-31

Table A-11 

Locations Offering Wellhead Equipment Services in the Gulf of Mexico

Company Name

Parent 

Company City State

County/ 

Parish

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Bill Poole Products, Inc. New Iberia LA Iberia 6

Bill Poole Products, Inc. Houma LA Terrebonne $0.30 2

Bronco Oilfield Services RPC, Inc. Broussard LA Lafayette

Bronco Oilfield Services RPC, Inc. Lafayette LA Lafayette

Bronco Oilfield Services RPC, Inc. Corpus Christi TX Nueces

Cameron International 

Corp.

Broussard LA Lafayette $43.29 80

Cameron International 

Corp. 

New Orleans LA Orleans $0.64 3

Cameron International 

Corp.

Patterson LA St. Mary

Cameron International 

Corp. 

Waller TX Waller $5.30 25

Cameron International 

Corp.

Corpus Christi TX Nueces $0.56 5

Cherokee Services of 

Louisiana 

Greene's Energy 

Group LLC

Duson LA Lafayette 21

Cherokee Services of 

Louisiana

Greene's Energy 

Group LLC

Houma LA Terrebonne $1.93 11

Cherokee Services of 

Louisiana 

Greene's Energy 

Group LLC

Bossier City LA Bossier

Control Products of 

Louisiana

T-3 Energy 

Services

Lafayette LA Lafayette $1.70 27

Corporate Machine & 

Equipment

Greene's Energy 

Group LLC

Lafayette LA Lafayette $1.12 12

Cor-Val Services Inc. T-3 Energy 

Services

Houma LA Terrebonne $12.10 130

Devin International Inc. Greene's Energy 

Group LLC

Lafayette LA Lafayette 25

Devin International Inc. Greene's Energy 

Group LLC

Houma LA Terrebonne $0.70 4

Devin International Inc. Greene's Energy 

Group LLC

Bossier City LA Bossier $0.08 2

Devin International Inc. Greene's Energy 

Group LLC

Victoria TX Victoria $0.09 2

Devin International Inc. Greene's Energy 

Group LLC

Alice TX Jim Wells

Flow-Tech Industries Houston TX Harris $1.00 4

Forum Oilfield 

Technologies, Inc.

LE Simmons & 

Associates, Inc.

Houston TX Harris $3.45 30

Forum Oilfield 

Technologies, Inc.

LE Simmons & 

Associates, Inc.

Houston TX Harris

Gravco LLC Robbins & 

Myers, Inc

Prairieville LA Ascension $0.25 3
A-32

Table A-11. Locations Offering Wellhead Equipment Services in the Gulf of Mexico 

(continued). 

Company Name

Parent 

Company City State

County/ 

Parish

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Greene's Energy Group 

LLC

Lafayette LA Lafayette 25

Greene's Energy Group 

LLC

Lafayette LA Lafayette $6.33 55

Greene's Energy Group 

LLC

Houma LA Terrebonne $0.53 3

Greene's Energy Group 

LLC

Bossier City LA Bossier

Greene's Energy Group 

LLC

Houston TX Harris 333

Greene's Energy Group 

LLC

Houston TX Harris $3.45 30

Greene's Energy Group 

LLC

Alice TX Jim Wells $1.84 16

Greene's Energy Group 

LLC

Ingleside TX San Patricio $2.53 22

Houma Valve Service Inc Houma LA Terrebonne $1.00 25

HP&T Products, Inc. T-3 Energy 

Services

Sugar Land TX Fort Bend $0.20 3

Hydril Company, Inc. Tenaris SA Westwego LA Jefferson $23.31 110

Hydril Company, Inc. Tenaris SA Houston TX Harris 444

Land & Sea Equipment 

International Corp.

Tampa FL Hillsborough

NATCO Belle Chasse NATCO Group, 

Inc.

Belle Chasse LA Plaquemines $1.04 9

NATCO Bossier City NATCO Group, 

Inc.

Bossier City LA Bossier $3.47 8

NATCO Corpus Christi NATCO Group, 

Inc.

Corpus Christi TX Nueces $7.58 14

NATCO Group, Inc Houston TX Harris 6

NATCO Houston Branch NATCO Group, 

Inc.

Magnolia TX Montgomery

NATCO New Iberia 

Branch

NATCO Group, 

Inc.

New Iberia LA Iberia $21.19 100

NATCO New Iberia 

Education Center

NATCO Group, 

Inc.

New Iberia LA Iberia $0.61 5

NATCO New Iberia 

Mfg/Eng 

NATCO Group, 

Inc.

New Iberia LA Iberia $56.82 105

National Oilwell Varco Broussard LA Lafayette $6.51 37

National Oilwell Varco Houma LA Terrebonne $0.45 3

National Oilwell Varco Youngsville LA Lafayette

National Oilwell Varco Bossier City LA Bossier $0.70 4

National Oilwell Varco Broussard LA Lafayette $2.11 12

National Oilwell Varco Youngsville LA Lafayette

National Oilwell Varco Amelia LA St. Mary

National Oilwell Varco Boothville LA Plaquemines

National Oilwell Varco Gibson LA Terrebonne $6.51 15

National Oilwell Varco Golden 

Meadow 

LA Lafourche $5.64 13
A-33

Table A-11. Locations Offering Wellhead Equipment Services in the Gulf of Mexico

(continued). 

Company Name

Parent 

Company City State

County/ 

Parish

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

National Oilwell Varco Harvey LA Jefferson

National Oilwell Varco Houma LA Terrebonne $4.77 11

National Oilwell Varco Lafayette LA Lafayette $0.35 3

National Oilwell Varco Lafayette LA Lafayette $13.01 30

National Oilwell Varco Lake Charles LA Calcasieu $2.17 5

National Oilwell Varco Morgan City LA St. Mary $3.47 8

National Oilwell Varco New Iberia LA Iberia $8.67 20

National Oilwell Varco New Iberia LA Iberia $10.84 25

National Oilwell Varco Shreveport LA Caddo $8.67 20

National Oilwell Varco Alice TX Jim Wells $2.30 20

National Oilwell Varco Corpus Christi TX Nueces $0.11 3

National Oilwell Varco Houston TX Harris 15

National Oilwell Varco Houston TX Harris 250

National Oilwell Varco Houston TX Harris $4.03 19

National Oilwell Varco Houston TX Harris $0.66 2

National Oilwell Varco Houston TX Harris

National Oilwell Varco Rosenberg TX Fort Bend

National Oilwell Varco Stafford TX Fort Bend $7.10 2

National Oilwell Varco Willis TX Montgomery

National Oilwell Varco Victoria TX Victoria $3.90 9

National Oilwell Varco Houston TX Harris $43.37 100

National Oilwell Varco Houston TX Harris

National Oilwell Varco Alice TX Jim Wells $4.85 9

National Oilwell Varco Mission TX Hidalgo $5.20 12

National Oilwell Varco Corpus Christi TX Nueces $3.47 8

National Oilwell Varco Houston TX Harris $7.81 18

National Oilwell Varco Houston TX Harris 100

Oteco, Inc. National Flame 

& Forge

Houston TX Harris $35.00 160

Preferred Industries Inc. T-3 Energy 

Services

Houma LA Terrebonne $5.09 24

R&M Energy Systems Robbins & 

Myers, Inc

Willis TX Montgomery $62.75 160

R&M Energy Systems Robbins & 

Myers, Inc

Tomball TX Harris $26.02 60

T-3 Energy Services Broussard LA Lafayette $86.75 200

T-3 Energy Services Houston TX Harris 14

United Wellhead Services, 

Inc.

T-3 Energy 

Services

Shreveport LA Caddo $3.18 15

United Wellhead Services, 

Inc.

T-3 Energy 

Services

Robstown TX Nueces $7.50 14

United Wellhead Services, 

Inc.

T-3 Energy 

Services

Houston TX Harris $4.24 20

Vanoil-AMT LE Simmons & 

Associates, Inc.

Lake Charles LA Calcasieu $13.00 75

VetcoGray General Electric 

Co.

Broussard LA Lafayette $16.95 80

VetcoGray General Electric 

Co.

Harvey LA Jefferson $12.71 60
A-34

Table A-11. Locations Offering Wellhead Equipment Services in the Gulf of Mexico 

(continued). 

Company Name

Parent 

Company City State

County/ 

Parish

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

VetcoGray General Electric 

Co.

Houston TX Harris $148.32 700

VetcoGray General Electric 

Co.

Houston TX Harris $8.48 40

VetcoGray General Electric 

Co.

Houston TX Harris $486.60 30

VetcoGray Controls Inc. General Electric 

Co.

Houston TX Harris $16.10 140

Wellhead and Valve 

Services

Greene's Energy 

Group LLC

Lafayette LA Lafayette 10

Wood Group Pressure 

Control

John Wood 

Group PLC 

Broussard LA Lafayette $21.19 100

Wood Group Pressure 

Control

John Wood 

Group PLC

Houma LA Terrebonne

Wood Group Pressure 

Control

John Wood 

Group PLC

New Orleans LA Orleans

Wood Group Pressure 

Control

John Wood 

Group PLC

Shreveport LA Caddo

Wood Group Pressure 

Control

John Wood 

Group PLC

Corpus Christi TX Nueces $8.48 40

Wood Group Pressure 

Control

John Wood 

Group PLC

Corpus Christi TX Nueces $0.48 3

Wood Group Pressure 

Control

John Wood 

Group PLC

Dallas TX Dallas

Wood Group Pressure 

Control

John Wood 

Group PLC

Houston TX Harris

Wood Group Pressure 

Control

John Wood 

Group PLC

Sugar Land TX Fort Bend

Wood Group Production 

Valve

John Wood 

Group PLC

Broussard LA Lafayette $12.54 100

Totals $1,334.46 4,523
A-35

Table A-12 

Locations Offering Accommodations in the Gulf of Mexico

Company Name Parent Company City State

County/ 

Parish

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Duffy & McGovern 

Accommodations 

Services

Superior Energy 

Services, Inc.

Broussard LA Lafayette $0.65 4

General Marine 

Leasing

Oil States 

International, Inc.

Belle 

Chasse

LA Plaquemines $19.96 76

General Marine 

Leasing

Oil States 

International, Inc.

Broussard LA Lafayette $2.59 16

General Marine 

Leasing

Oil States 

International, Inc.

Houston TX Harris

Global Maritime 

Solutions LLC

Abbeville LA Vermilion $0.25 5

Global Maritime 

Solutions LLC

Houston TX Harris

GulfLand Structures Lafayette LA Lafayette

HB Rentals Superior Energy 

Services, Inc.

Broussard LA Lafayette 83

HB Rentals Superior Energy 

Services, Inc.

Alice TX Jim Wells $16.23 30

HB Rentals Superior Energy 

Services, Inc.

Liverpool TX Brazoria $2.64 15

HB Rentals Superior Energy 

Services, Inc.

Houston TX Harris

Leirvik Beacon 

Offshore

Orange TX Orange

Marine & Offshore 

Supplies, Inc

Tampa FL Hillsborough

Prosafe Production SE Prosafe SE Houston TX Harris

QCI Marine Offshore 

LLC

Pascagoula MS Jackson $1.38 12

QCI Marine Offshore 

LLC

Houston TX Harris $22.62 30

Southport, LLC Gulf Island 

Fabrication, Inc.

Houma LA Terrebonne $33.02 200

Stallion Offshore 

Services

Stallion Oilfield 

Services, Ltd.

Abbeville LA Vermilion 165

Stallion Offshore 

Services

Stallion Oilfield 

Services, Ltd.

Abbeville LA Vermilion

Stallion Offshore 

Services

Stallion Oilfield 

Services, Ltd.

Houma LA Terrebonne $0.10 2

Taylors International 

Services, Inc.

Lafayette LA Lafayette $69.00 700

Totals 168.44 1,338
A-36

Table A-13 

Locations Offering Air Transportation Services in the Gulf of Mexico

Company Name Parent Company City State

County/ 

Parish

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Air Logistics LLC Bristow Group, Inc. Lake Charles LA Calcasieu

Air Logistics LLC Bristow Group, Inc. Creole LA Cameron $3.95 30

Air Logistics LLC Bristow Group, Inc. New Iberia LA Iberia $39.51 319

Air Logistics LLC Bristow Group, Inc. Galliano LA Lafourche $0.09 2

Air Logistics LLC Bristow Group, Inc. New Orleans LA Orleans

Air Logistics LLC Bristow Group, Inc. Venice LA Plaquemines

Air Logistics LLC Bristow Group, Inc. Patterson LA Saint Mary

Air Logistics LLC Bristow Group, Inc. Houma LA Terrebonne $0.26 2

Air Logistics LLC Bristow Group, Inc. Abbeville LA Vermilion $13.17 100

Air Logistics LLC Bristow Group, Inc. Rockport TX Aransas

Air Logistics LLC Bristow Group, Inc. Angleton TX Brazoria

Air Logistics LLC Bristow Group, Inc. Galveston TX Galveston $0.25 4

Air Logistics LLC Bristow Group, Inc. Sabine Pass TX Jefferson

Bristow Group Inc. Houston TX Harris 23

Central Helicopter 

Service Inc.

Houston TX Harris $1.30 15

Era Helicopters LLC Seacor Holdings Inc. Coden AL Mobile

Era Helicopters LLC Seacor Holdings Inc. Theodore AL Mobile

Era Helicopters LLC Seacor Holdings Inc. Lake Charles LA Calcasieu $74.30 150

Era Helicopters LLC Seacor Holdings Inc. Cameron LA Cameron

Era Helicopters LLC Seacor Holdings Inc. Johnson 

Bayou

LA Cameron

Era Helicopters LLC Seacor Holdings Inc. Kenner LA Jefferson

Era Helicopters LLC Seacor Holdings Inc. Golden 

Meadow

LA Lafourche

Era Helicopters LLC Seacor Holdings Inc. Venice LA Plaquemines

Era Helicopters LLC Seacor Holdings Inc. Patterson LA Saint Mary

Era Helicopters LLC Seacor Holdings Inc. Dulac LA Terrebonne

Era Helicopters LLC Seacor Holdings Inc. Houma LA Terrebonne

Era Helicopters LLC Seacor Holdings Inc. Schriever LA Terrebonne

Era Helicopters LLC Seacor Holdings Inc. Abbeville LA Vermilion

Era Helicopters LLC Seacor Holdings Inc. Rockport TX Aransas

Era Helicopters LLC Seacor Holdings Inc. Brazoria TX Brazoria

Era Helicopters LLC Seacor Holdings Inc. Galveston TX Galveston $0.19 3

Era Helicopters LLC Seacor Holdings Inc. Markham TX Matagorda

Era Helicopters LLC Seacor Holdings Inc. Corpus Christi TX Nueces

Evergreen Helicopters 

International Inc.

Evergreen Holdings 

Inc.

Galveston TX Galveston $15.12 50

Go Helitrans Co Inc. Manvel TX Brazoria 34

Go Helitrans Co Inc. Port O Connor TX Calhoun

Houston Helicopters, 

Inc.

Pearland TX Brazoria $4.00 25

Industrial Helicopters 

Inc.

Scott LA Lafayette 10

Pelican Aviation Corp New Iberia LA Iberia $1.10 17

Petroleum Helicopters 

Inc. (PHI)

Theodore AL Mobile
A-37

Table A-13. Locations Offering Air Transportation Services in the Gulf of Mexico (continued). 

Company Name Parent Company City State

County/ 

Parish

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Petroleum Helicopters 

Inc. (PHI)

Lake Charles LA Calcasieu

Petroleum Helicopters 

Inc. (PHI)

Lafayette LA Lafayette

Petroleum Helicopters 

Inc. (PHI)

Golden 

Meadow 

LA Lafourche

Petroleum Helicopters 

Inc. (PHI)

New Orleans LA Orleans

Petroleum Helicopters 

Inc. (PHI)

Boothville LA Plaquemines

Petroleum Helicopters 

Inc. (PHI)

Morgan City LA Saint Mary

Petroleum Helicopters 

Inc. (PHI)

Houma LA Terrebonne

Petroleum Helicopters 

Inc. (PHI)

Intracoastal 

City

LA Vermilion

Petroleum Helicopters 

Inc. (PHI)

Port O Connor TX Calhoun

Petroleum Helicopters 

Inc. (PHI)

Galveston TX Galveston

Petroleum Helicopters 

Inc. (PHI)

Sabine Pass TX Jefferson

Rotocraft Leasing Mobile AL Mobile $0.10 2

Rotocraft Leasing Miami FL Miami-Dade $0.90 4

Rotocraft Leasing Cameron LA Cameron

Rotocraft Leasing Broussard LA Lafayette 100

Rotocraft Leasing Galliano LA Lafourche 2

Rotocraft Leasing Venice LA Plaquemines

Rotocraft Leasing Patterson LA Saint Mary $0.09 2

Rotocraft Leasing Abbeville LA Vermilion

Rotocraft Leasing Abbeville LA Vermilion $0.11 2

Rotocraft Leasing Rockport TX Aransas

Rotocraft Leasing Galveston TX Galveston

Rotocraft Leasing Palacios TX Matagorda $0.09 2

Southern Helicopters Sunshine LA Iberville $3.70 15

Totals $158.23 913
A-38

Table A-14 

Locations Offering Water Transportation Services in the Gulf of Mexico

Company Name

Parent 

Company City State

County/ 

Parish

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

ABC Marine Towing 

LLC

Belle Chasse LA Plaquemines $0.12 1

Abdon Callais Offshore 

LLC

Golden 

Meadow 

LA Lafourche $87.99 300

Adams Towing Corp Morgan City LA Saint Mary $0.72 10

AMC Liftboats Inc. Golden 

Meadow

LA Lafourche $2.20 20

Apex Towing Apex Oil 

Company Inc.

Mount Airy LA Saint John 

the Baptist

$1.55 12

Apex Towing Apex Oil 

Company Inc.

Port Allen LA West Baton 

Rouge

$23.77 13

Argosy Shipping (USA) 

LP

Bellaire TX Harris $1.90 20

B&J Martin Inc. Galliano LA Lafourche $8.05 30

Basin Marine, Inc. Berwick LA Saint Mary

Bay Houston Towing Co. Freeport TX Brazoria

Bay Houston Towing Co. Galveston TX Galveston $0.26 2

Bay Houston Towing Co. Houston TX Harris 40

Bay Houston Towing Co. Corpus 

Christi

TX Nueces

BBC Chartering Bellaire TX Harris $2.20 20

Belle Pass Towing Corp Golden 

Meadow 

LA Lafourche $2.80 35

Big E Marine Corp New Orleans LA Orleans

Big R Towing Inc Jeanerette LA Iberia $0.09 2

Bordelon Marine Inc. Lockport LA Lafourche $19.48 85

Broussard Brothers Inc. Abbeville LA Vermilion $9.90 150

Brown Water Marine 

Service Inc.

Rockport TX Aransas 15

BSI Marine Contractors 

Inc.

Cut Off LA Lafourche $0.08 2

Bud's Boat Rental Inc. Venice LA Plaquemines

Buffalo Marine Service Houston TX Harris $25.40 90

C & G Boats Inc. Golden 

Meadow

LA Lafourche $1.40 20

Caillou Island Towing Co 

Inc.

Houma LA Terrebonne 30

Cameron Offshore Boats 

Inc.

Cameron LA Lake 

Charles

$5.03 45

Candy Fleet Corp Morgan City LA Saint Mary $0.33 5

Cashman Equipment 

Corp. 

Baton Rouge LA East Baton 

Rouge 

$1.16 7

Cashman Equipment 

Corp.

Saint Rose LA Saint 

Charles

Celtic Marine Corp. Baton Rouge LA East Baton 

Rouge 

13

Celtic Marine Corp. Metairie LA Jefferson
A-39

Table A-14. Locations Offering Water Transportation Services in the Gulf of Mexico 

(continued). 

Company Name

Parent 

Company City State

County/ 

Parish

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Celtic Marine Corp. Houston TX Harris

Cenac Towing Co Inc. Houma LA Terrebonne 458

Cenac Towing Co Inc. League City TX Galveston

Central Boat Rentals, Inc. Berwick LA Saint Mary $13.00 150

Central Gulf Towing Inc. Cut Off LA Lafourche $20.00 47

COMAR Marine Corp Amelia LA Saint Mary $0.45 10

Crewboats Inc. Chalmette LA Saint 

Bernard

$7.20 132

Crowley Marine Services 

Inc.

Lake 

Charles

LA Calcasieu $200.80 200

Crowley Marine Services 

Inc.

Houston TX Harris $6.86 30

D & B Boat Rentals Inc. New Iberia LA Iberia $1.10 15

Dawn Services Inc. Gretna LA Jefferson $5.90 80

Dean Maritime Ltd. Co. Houston TX Harris $1.00 3

Delta Towing Hercules 

Offshore

Houma LA Terrebonne $17.70 400

Denet Towing Service 

Inc.

Boothville LA Plaquemines $3.50 30

Diamond Services Corp. Amelia LA Saint Mary $6.70 100

Dockwise USA Inc. Houston TX Harris $0.48 6

Doerle's Quarterboats Inc. New Iberia LA Iberia $0.14 2

Double Eagle Marine 

LLC

New Iberia LA Iberia $31.87 70

Ed Broussard Marine 

Service Inc.

Loreauville LA Iberia $0.98 13

Energy Logistics, Inc. Seacor 

Holdings Inc. 

and Michael 

Baker Corp.

Cameron LA Cameron

Energy Logistics, Inc. Seacor 

Holdings Inc. 

and Michael 

Baker Corp.

Venice LA Plaquemines $0.09 2

Energy Logistics, Inc. Seacor 

Holdings Inc. 

and Michael 

Baker Corp.

Morgan City LA Saint Mary $0.79 16

Energy Logistics, Inc. Seacor 

Holdings Inc. 

and Michael 

Baker Corp.

Houston TX Harris

Freedom Marine 

Services, Inc.

Houma LA Terrebonne $0.95 8

G & H Towing Co Galveston TX Galveston 30

Galiano Tugs Inc. Cut Off LA Lafourche $2.00 40
A-40

Table A-14. Locations Offering Water Transportation Services in the Gulf of Mexico 

(continued). 

Company Name

Parent 

Company City State

County/ 

Parish

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Garber Brothers Garber 

Industries, Inc.

Berwick LA Saint Mary $2.88 25

Global Marine Transport, 

Inc.

Houston TX Harris $0.50 6

GulfMark Americas Inc. GulfMark 

Offshore Inc.

Youngsville LA Lafayette

GulfMark Americas Inc. GulfMark 

Offshore Inc.

Saint Rose LA Saint 

Charles

GulfMark Offshore Inc. Houston TX Harris

Harbor Towing & 

Fleeting Inc.

Metairie LA Jefferson

Harvey Gulf International 

Marine Inc.

Harvey LA Jefferson $2.60 15

Hercules Liftboats Hercules 

Offshore

Lafayette LA Lafayette $11.20 160

Hornbeck Offshore 

Services, Inc.

Golden 

Meadow

LA Lafourche

Hornbeck Offshore 

Services, Inc.

Covington LA Saint 

Tammany

33

Hustler Marine Services 

Inc.

Port O 

Connor

TX Calhoun $0.33 7

Iberia Marine Service 

LLC 

New Iberia LA Iberia $4.00 28

Inland Marine 

Management Corp./Huey 

L Cheramie Inc.

Galliano LA Lafourche $2.50 70

International 

Construction Group 

LLC/International Marine 

LLC

International 

Offshore 

Services

Larose LA Lafourche $50.00 85

International Marine LLC International 

Offshore 

Services

Irvington AL Mobile

JW Banta Towing Inc. Sunshine LA Iberville 4

Kevin Gros Consulting & 

Marine Services Inc.

Larose LA Lafourche $6.70 115

Kilgore Offshore Inc. Scott LA Lafayette

KMJ Services Inc. Cut Off LA Lafourche $0.31 2

L & M BoTruc Rental 

Inc.

Galliano LA Lafourche $5.40 150

Louisiana International 

Marine, Inc. 

Gretna LA Jefferson $1.00 20

Mammoet USA Inc. Rosharon TX Brazoria $0.09 75

Marine Centre, Inc. Hahnville LA Saint 

Charles

$0.50 6

Marine Transportation 

Consultants 

Houston TX Harris
A-41

Table A-14. Locations Offering Water Transportation Services in the Gulf of Mexico 

(continued). 

Company Name

Parent 

Company City State

County/ 

Parish

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Martin Midstream 

Partners L.P.

Mobile AL Mobile

Martin Midstream 

Partners L.P.

Houston TX Harris $9.17 40

Martin Midstream 

Partners L.P.

LaPorte TX Harris $22.58 16

McDonough Marine 

Service

Metairie LA Jefferson

McDonough Marine 

Service

Belle Chasse LA Plaquemines $0.06 1

McDonough Marine 

Service

Channelview TX Harris

MegaFleet Towing Co 

Inc.

Pasadena TX Harris $5.80 75

Moran Miami Moran 

Transportation 

Co 

Miami FL Miami-Dade $1.93 13

Moran Towing of Texas 

Inc.

Moran 

Transportation 

Co 

Port Arthur TX Jefferson $11.00 56

Moss Maritime Inc. Saipem SpA Houston TX Harris $0.06 1

Movable Offshore Boats 

Inc.

Larose LA Lafourche $0.01 3

Muchowich Offshore Oil 

Services Inc. 

Freeport TX Brazoria $12.72 55

NMA Maritime & 

Offshore Contractors Inc.

Houston TX Harris $2.00 5

Oceanic Fleet Inc. Lockport LA Lafourche 30

Odyssea Marine Cut Off LA Lafourche

Odyssea Marine Berwick LA Saint Mary

Odyssea Marine Morgan City LA Saint Mary

Odyssea Marine Houston TX Harris

Offshore Express Inc. Houma LA Terrebonne 75

Offshore Marine 

Contractors Inc.

Cut Off LA Lafourche $2.10 44

Offshore Towing Inc. Larose LA Lafourche

Oilfield Barges Barnett Marine 

Inc.

Belle Chasse LA Plaquemines $4.90 45

Otto Candies LLC Des 

Allemands

LA Saint 

Charles

$21.70 250

Phil Guilbeau Offshore 

Service Inc.

Galliano LA Lafourche $0.94 23

Port Technical Services 

Inc.

Bellaire TX Harris $0.30 6

Rene J Cheramie & Sons 

Inc.

Lafayette LA Lafayette

Rentrop Tugs Morgan City LA Saint Mary $0.35 4

Ryan Marine Services Galveston TX Galveston $1.10 36
A-42

Table A-14. Locations Offering Water Transportation Services in the Gulf of Mexico 

(continued). 

Company Name

Parent 

Company City State

County/ 

Parish

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Martin Midstream 

Partners L.P.

Mobile AL Mobile

Martin Midstream 

Partners L.P.

Houston TX Harris $9.17 40

Martin Midstream 

Partners L.P.

LaPorte TX Harris $22.58 16

McDonough Marine 

Service

Metairie LA Jefferson

McDonough Marine 

Service

Belle Chasse LA Plaquemines $0.06 1

McDonough Marine 

Service

Channelview TX Harris

MegaFleet Towing Co 

Inc.

Pasadena TX Harris $5.80 75

Moran Miami Moran 

Transportation 

Co 

Miami FL Miami-Dade $1.93 13

Moran Towing of Texas 

Inc.

Moran 

Transportation 

Co 

Port Arthur TX Jefferson $11.00 56

Moss Maritime Inc. Saipem SpA Houston TX Harris $0.06 1

Movable Offshore Boats 

Inc.

Larose LA Lafourche $0.01 3

Muchowich Offshore Oil 

Services Inc.

Freeport TX Brazoria $12.72 55

NMA Maritime & 

Offshore Contractors Inc.

Houston TX Harris $2.00 5

Oceanic Fleet Inc. Lockport LA Lafourche 30

Odyssea Marine Cut Off LA Lafourche

Odyssea Marine Berwick LA Saint Mary

Odyssea Marine Morgan City LA Saint Mary

Odyssea Marine Houston TX Harris

Offshore Express Inc. Houma LA Terrebonne 75

Offshore Marine 

Contractors Inc.

Cut Off LA Lafourche $2.10 44

Offshore Towing Inc. Larose LA Lafourche

Oilfield Barges Barnett Marine 

Inc.

Belle Chasse LA Plaquemines $4.90 45

Otto Candies LLC Des 

Allemands

LA Saint 

Charles

$21.70 250

Phil Guilbeau Offshore 

Service Inc.

Galliano LA Lafourche $0.94 23

Port Technical Services 

Inc.

Bellaire TX Harris $0.30 6

Rene J Cheramie & Sons 

Inc.

Lafayette LA Lafayette
A-43

Table A-14. Locations Offering Water Transportation Services in the Gulf of Mexico 

(continued). 

Company Name

Parent 

Company City State

County/ 

Parish

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Rentrop Tugs Morgan City LA Saint Mary $0.35 4

Ryan Marine Services Galveston TX Galveston $1.10 36

Sea Boat Rentals Inc. Galliano LA Lafourche $3.30 35

Sea Horse Marine Inc. Lockport LA Lafourche $20.00 40

Seabulk Towing, Inc. Seacor 

Holdings Inc.

Mobile AL Mobile $3.71 25

Seabulk Towing, Inc. Seacor 

Holdings Inc.

Tampa FL Hillsborough $1.00 70

Seabulk Towing, Inc. Seacor 

Holdings Inc.

Lake 

Charles

LA Calcasieu $0.46 2

Seabulk Towing, Inc. Seacor 

Holdings Inc.

Port Arthur TX Jefferson $4.80 58

SEACOR Marine Seacor 

Holdings Inc.

Irvington AL Mobile $0.20 2

SEACOR Marine Seacor 

Holdings Inc.

Lake 

Charles

LA Calcasieu

SEACOR Marine Seacor 

Holdings Inc.

Patterson LA Saint Mary $1.54 12

SEACOR Marine Seacor 

Holdings Inc.

Houma LA Terrebonne $14.50 100

SEACOR Marine Seacor 

Holdings Inc.

Freeport TX Brazoria 30

SEACOR Marine Seacor 

Holdings Inc.

Houston TX Harris $2.38 16

Signet Maritime Corp Pensacola FL Escambia

Signet Maritime Corp Brownsville TX Cameron $1.46 15

Signet Maritime Corp Houston TX Harris 5

Signet Maritime Corp Ingleside TX San Patricio

Smit Salvage Americas 

Inc.

Smit 

Internationale 

NV

Houston TX Harris $18.00 12

Southern States Offshore 

Inc.

Houston TX Harris $3.00 65

Stagg Marine Inc. Morgan City LA Saint Mary $2.30 24

Superior Energy Services, 

Inc. Marine Services 

Division

Superior 

Energy 

Services, Inc.

New Iberia LA Iberia

Supreme Offshore 

Service Inc.

Houma LA Terrebonne $3.20 20

Talen's Marine & Fuel 

Inc.

Allegro 

Biodiesel Corp.

Lake 

Charles

LA Calcasieu 6

Talen's Marine & Fuel 

Inc.

Allegro 

Biodiesel Corp.

Cameron LA Cameron 12

Talen's Marine & Fuel 

Inc.

Allegro 

Biodiesel Corp.

Lake Arthur LA Jefferson 

Davis

Talen's Marine & Fuel 

Inc.

Allegro 

Biodiesel Corp.

Morgan City LA Saint Mary
A-44

Table A-14. Locations Offering Water Transportation Services in the Gulf of Mexico 

(continued). 

Company Name

Parent 

Company City State

County/ 

Parish

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Talen's Marine & Fuel 

Inc.

Allegro 

Biodiesel Corp.

Cameron LA Cameron 12

Talen's Marine & Fuel 

Inc.

Allegro 

Biodiesel Corp.

Lake Arthur LA Jefferson 

Davis

Talen's Marine & Fuel 

Inc.

Allegro 

Biodiesel Corp.

Morgan City LA Saint Mary

Talen's Marine & Fuel 

Inc.

Allegro 

Biodiesel Corp.

Houma LA Terrebonne $5.43 2

Talen's Marine & Fuel 

Inc.

Allegro 

Biodiesel Corp.

Freshwater 

City

LA Vermilion

Talen's Marine & Fuel 

Inc.

Allegro 

Biodiesel Corp.

Port Arthur TX Jefferson 15

Teekay Corp Houston TX Harris $7.20 30

Tidewater Inc. New Orleans LA Orleans

Tiger Towing Morgan City LA Saint Mary $0.36 6

Trico Marine Services,

Inc.

Houma LA Terrebonne

Trico Marine Services, 

Inc.

Houston TX Harris

United Tugs Inc. Harvey LA Jefferson 50

Waterways Towing & 

Offshore Services, Inc.

Mobile AL Mobile $0.90 15

Totals $794.41 5,055
A-45

Table A-15 

Locations Offering Catering Services in the Gulf of Mexico

Company Name

Parent 

Company City State County 

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Affiliated Marine Supply Inc Houma LA Terrebonne $0.30 8

Aramark US Offshore 

Services, LLC

Aramark 

Holdings 

Corp. Houston TX Harris $8.88 200 

ART Catering Inc

Belle 

Chasse LA Plaquemines $22.00 380

Cardinal Culinary Services, 

LLC Seabrook TX Harris $0.57 26 

Coastal Catering LLC Houma LA Terrebonne $0.50 9

Coastal Food Service Inc

Compass 

Group PLC Carencro LA Lafayette $2.00 80

Craig International Supplies 

Inc, CIS

Craig Group 

Ltd. Humble TX Harris $0.50 9 

Delta Catering Management 

LLC

Sodexo 

Alliance SA Harahan LA Jefferson $8.70 400

Doerle Food Service LLC Broussard LA Lafayette $35.49 170

Doerle Food Service LLC Shreveport LA Caddo $24.98 29

Doerle Food Service LLC 

Golden 

Meadow LA Lafourche $6.03 7 

Energy Catering Service LLC

Sodexo 

Alliance SA Houma LA Terrebonne $5.00 15

ESS Support Services 

Worldwide 

Compass 

Group PLC Lafayette LA Lafayette $42.50 1,200 

G & J Land & Marine Food 

Distributors Inc.

Morgan 

City LA Saint Mary $15.70 75

General Marine Leasing

Oil States 

International, 

Inc.

Belle 

Chasse LA Plaquemines $19.96 76

General Marine Leasing

Oil States 

International, 

Inc. Broussard LA Lafayette $2.59 16

Jakes Finer Foods Inc. Houston TX Harris $25.60 120

Universal Sodexo Remote 

Sites

Sodexo 

Alliance SA Harahan LA Jefferson $130.00 250 

Sonoco Wholesale Grocers Sonoco Houma LA Terrebonne $6.50 300

Taylors International Services 

Inc. Lafayette LA Lafayette $69.00 700

Trinity Catering Inc. Houma LA Terrebonne $12.00 200

Totals $438.80 4,270
A-46

Table A-16 

Locations Offering Workover Services in the Gulf of Mexico

Company Name Parent Company City State County 

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Aircomp LLC

Allis-Chalmers 

Energy

Fort 

Stockton TX Pecos $6.81 30

Allis-Chalmers Energy Inc.

Allis-Chalmers 

Energy Inc. Broussard LA Lafayette

Allis-Chalmers Energy Inc.

Allis-Chalmers 

Energy Inc. Houston TX Harris 15

Allis-Chalmers Energy Inc.

Allis-Chalmers 

Energy Inc. Houston TX Harris $1.75 7 

Allis-Chalmers Energy Inc.

Allis-Chalmers 

Energy Inc. Edinburg TX Hidalgo 80

Allis-Chalmers Energy Inc.

Allis-Chalmers 

Energy Inc. Conroe TX Montgomery

Allis-Chalmers Tubular 

Services Inc

Allis-Chalmers 

Energy Inc. Youngsville LA Lafayette $11.43 65

Allis-Chalmers Tubular 

Services Inc

Allis-Chalmers 

Energy Inc.

Corpus 

Christi TX Nueces $8.63 75 

Allis-Chalmers Tubular 

Services Inc

Allis-Chalmers 

Energy Inc.

Corpus 

Christi TX Nueces $2.30 20

Baroid Drilling Inc Halliburton Co. La Grange TX Fayette $0.56 10

BJ Services Co. BJ Services Co Crowley LA Acadia $11.86 103

BJ Services Co. BJ Services Co Cameron LA Cameron $0.12 1

BJ Services Co. BJ Services Co Cameron LA Cameron $11.50 100

BJ Services Co. BJ Services Co Lafayette LA Lafayette $17.27 150

BJ Services Co. BJ Services Co Lafayette LA Lafayette $2.30 20

BJ Services Co. BJ Services Co Lafayette LA Lafayette $1.15 10

BJ Services Co. BJ Services Co Fourchon LA Lafourche

BJ Services Co. BJ Services Co

New 

Orleans LA Orleans $0.92 8 

BJ Services Co. BJ Services Co Venice LA Plaquemines $0.23 2

BJ Services Co. BJ Services Co Berwick LA St. Mary

BJ Services Co. BJ Services Co Dulac LA Terrebonne

BJ Services Co. BJ Services Co Houma LA Terrebonne $1.38 12

BJ Services Co. BJ Services Co Houma LA Terrebonne $23.02 200

BJ Services Co. BJ Services Co Freeport TX Brazoria 100

BJ Services Co. BJ Services Co

Port 

O'Connor TX Calhoun

BJ Services Co. BJ Services Co Galveston TX Galveston $0.36 3

BJ Services Co. BJ Services Co Sabine Pass TX Jefferson

BJ Services Co. BJ Services Co Liberty TX Liberty $3.45 30

BJ Services Co. BJ Services Co

Harbor 

Island TX Nueces

BJ Services Co. BJ Services Co Victoria TX Victoria $11.51 100

Coil Tubing Services LLC W-H Energy Services Broussard LA Lafayette 150

Coil Tubing Services LLC W-H Energy Services Angleton TX Brazoria $5.76 50

Coil Tubing Services LLC W-H Energy Services Dallas TX Dallas $1.75 15

Coil Tubing Services LLC W-H Energy Services Alice TX Jim Wells $7.48 65
A-47

Table A-16. Locations Offering Workover Services in the Gulf of Mexico (continued). 

Company Name Parent Company City State County

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Complete Production 

Services

Complete Production 

Services Houston TX Harris 60 

Cudd Energy Services RPC Incorporated Houma LA Terrebonne

Cudd Energy Services RPC Incorporated

Corpus 

Christi TX Nueces $15.00 40

Estis Well Service LLC

Estis Well Service 

LLC New Iberia LA Iberia $3.90 40 

Expro Americas Inc

Expro International 

Group Ltd. Houston TX Harris $10.59 50

Expro Americas LLC

Expro International 

Group Ltd. Broussard LA Lafayette $5.99 52 

Expro Americas LLC

Expro International 

Group Ltd.

Mont 

Belvieu TX Chambers

Expro Americas LLC

Expro International 

Group Ltd. Alice TX Jim Wells $0.12 1 

Expro Americas LLC

Expro International 

Group Ltd.

Corpus 

Christi TX Nueces

Halliburton Energy 

Services Halliburton Co. Lafayette LA Lafayette $10.84 25 

Halliburton Energy 

Services Halliburton Co. Freeport TX Brazoria

Halliburton Energy 

Services Halliburton Co.

Port 

O'Connor TX Calhoun $0.69 6 

Halliburton Energy 

Services Halliburton Co. Galveston TX Galveston

Halliburton Energy 

Services Halliburton Co. Kilgore TX Gregg

Halliburton Energy 

Services Halliburton Co. Houston TX Harris $4.60 40

Halliburton Energy 

Services Halliburton Co. Midland TX Midland $57.00 500 

Halliburton Energy 

Services Halliburton Co. Tyler TX Smith $2.30 20

Halliburton Energy 

Services Halliburton Co. Laredo TX Webb $11.50 100 

Hydraulic Well Control Boots & Coots Houma LA Terrebonne 2

International Snubbing 

Services, Inc.

Superior Energy 

Services Inc. Arnaudville LA St. Landry $11.43 65

Major Equipment & 

Remediation Services Inc.

Major Equipment & 

Remediation Services 

Inc. Morgan City LA St. Martin $10.28 50

Nabors Offshore Corp Nabors Industries Ltd Harvey LA Jefferson

Nabors Offshore Corp Nabors Industries Ltd Houston TX Harris 40

Petro-Rentals Inc

Allis-Chalmers 

Energy Inc Broussard LA Lafayette 15 

Petro-Rentals Inc

Allis-Chalmers 

Energy Inc Houma LA Terrebonne $2.11 12

Pride International Inc.

Pride International, 

Inc. Houston TX Harris 350 
A-48

Table A-16. Locations Offering Workover Services in the Gulf of Mexico (continued). 

Company Name Parent Company City State County

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Schlumberger Oilfield 

Services Schlumberger NV Larose LA Lafourche 

Schlumberger Oilfield 

Services Schlumberger NV Maurice LA Vermilion $25.32 220

Schlumberger Oilfield 

Services Schlumberger NV Houston TX Harris $4.60 40 

Schlumberger Technology 

Corp Schlumberger NV Lafayette LA Lafayette $5.76 50

Schlumberger Technology 

Corp Schlumberger NV Youngsville LA Lafayette $11.51 100 

Schlumberger Technology 

Corp Schlumberger NV

New 

Orleans LA Orleans $7.25 63

Schlumberger Technology 

Corp Schlumberger NV Belle Chasse LA Plaquemines $2.88 25 

Schlumberger Technology 

Corp Schlumberger NV Houma LA Terrebonne $34.53 300

Seahawk Drilling

Pride International, 

Inc. Houma LA Terrebonne $180.00 1,250 

Spartan Offshore Drilling

Spartan Offshore 

Drilling LLC Metairie LA Jefferson $0.73 8

Spartan Offshore Drilling

Spartan Offshore 

Drilling LLC Broussard LA Lafayette

Spartan Offshore Drilling

Spartan Offshore 

Drilling LLC

New 

Orleans LA Orleans

Spartan Offshore Drilling

Spartan Offshore 

Drilling LLC Houston TX Harris

TETRA Technologies Inc.

TETRA Technologies 

Inc

The 

Woodlands TX Montgomery 150

Thru-Tubing Systems Inc.

Thru-Tubing Systems 

Inc. New Iberia LA Iberia $0.51 10 

Warrior Energy Services

Superior Energy 

Services Inc. New Iberia LA Iberia

Warrior Energy Services

Superior Energy 

Services Inc. Lafayette LA Lafayette

Warrior Energy Services

Superior Energy 

Services Inc. Broussard LA Lafayette

Warrior Energy Services

Superior Energy 

Services Inc. Sibley LA

South 

Webster $1.44 12 

Warrior Energy Services

Superior Energy 

Services Inc. Houma LA Terrebonne

Warrior Energy Services

Superior Energy 

Services Inc. Gray LA Terrebonne $4.60 40 

Warrior Energy Services

Superior Energy 

Services Inc. Columbus MS Lowndes 10

Warrior Energy Services

Superior Energy 

Services Inc. Houston TX Harris

Warrior Energy Services

Superior Energy 

Services Inc.

Corpus 

Christi TX Nueces

Warrior Energy Services

Superior Energy 

Services Inc. Victoria TX Victoria
A-49

Table A-16. Locations Offering Workover Services in the Gulf of Mexico (continued). 

Company Name Parent Company City State County

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Well Ops Inc.

Helix Energy 

Solutions Group Houston TX Harris

Totals $557.01 5,367
A-50

Table A-17 

Locations Offering Diving Services in the Gulf of Mexico

Company Name Parent Company City State County 

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Acergy S.A. Houston TX Harris $283.00 150

Allseas USA, Inc.

Allseas Group, 

S.A. Houston TX Harris $4.10 35

American Inshore 

Divers Boca Raton FL Palm Beach $0.10 10 

Anders Construction, 

Inc Harvey LA Jefferson $0.25 3

Aqueos Corporation Broussard LA

Bisso Marine Co.

New 

Orleans LA Orleans

Bisso Marine Co. Houston TX Harris 390

CA Richards & 

Associates, Inc. Houston TX Harris $0.50 5

Cal Dive International

Helix Energy 

Solutions Group, 

Inc.

Port of 

Iberia LA Iberia $0.07 2

Cal Dive International

Helix Energy 

Solutions Group, 

Inc. Fourchon LA Lafourche $0.05 1

Cal Dive International

Helix Energy 

Solutions Group, 

Inc.

New 

Orleans LA Orleans

Cal Dive International

Helix Energy 

Solutions Group, 

Inc. Houston TX Harris $856.90 100

Cal Dive International

Helix Energy 

Solutions Group, 

Inc. Port Arthur TX Jefferson $2.40 18

Chet Morrison 

Contractors Harvey LA Jefferson $0.50 50 

Chet Morrison 

Contractors Houma LA Terrebonne $5.50 500

Commercial Diving 

Services Inc. Mobile AL Mobile $1.00 9 

Deep Marine 

Technology, Inc. Houston TX Harris $20.00 200

DivCon LLC Harvey LA Jefferson $0.05 1

DivCon LLC Morgan City LA St. Mary $1.50 45

Diver Dan Diving 

Services, Inc. Groves TX Jefferson $0.08 1

Diver Dan Diving 

Services, Inc. Nederland TX Jefferson $0.06 2 

Epic Divers & Marine 

LLC

Tetra 

Technologies, Inc. Harvey LA Jefferson $1.53 20 

Global Industries 

Offshore, LLC Houston TX Harris $23.34 203

Independent Divers, 

Inc.

New 

Orleans LA Orleans $1.44 12 
A-51

Table A-17. Locations Offering Diving Services in the Gulf of Mexico (continued). 

Company Name Parent Company City State County 

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

In-Depth Offshore 

Technologies

Baton 

Rouge LA

East Baton 

Rouge $0.13 2

J&J Diving 

Corporation Belle Chasse LA Plaquemines $1.20 40 

Legacy Offshore, LLC Broussard LA Lafayette

Lone Star Diving, Inc Santa Fe TX Galveston $1.10 24

Lone Star Diving, Inc Texas City TX Galveston $0.05 1

Louisiana Oilfield 

Divers, LLC Belle Chasse LA Plaquemines $10.00 50 

MADCON Pearl River LA St. Tammany $3.90 57

Oceaneering Int'l, Inc. Panama City FL Bay

Oceaneering Int'l, Inc. New Iberia LA Iberia $1.73 15

Oceaneering Int'l, Inc. Lafayette LA Lafayette $0.69 6

Oceaneering Int'l, Inc. Morgan City LA St. Mary $115.20 800

Oceaneering Int'l, Inc. Houma LA Terrebonne $7.30 61

Oceaneering Int'l, Inc. Houston TX Harris

Oceaneering Int'l, Inc. Humble TX Harris $1.15 10

Phoenix International 

Holdings, Inc. Morgan City LA St. Mary $1.91 25

Phoenix International 

Holdings, Inc. Houston TX Harris $0.15 2 

RVE Inc.

Corpus 

Christi TX Nueces $3.00 14

S&J Diving, Inc. Houston TX Harris $14.63 65

S&J Diving, Inc.

Aransas 

Pass TX San Patricio $14.63 15 

Saipem America Saipem S.p.A. Houston TX Harris $440.90 192

Saltwater Salvage Freeport TX Brazoria

Seamar Divers, Inc. Medley FL Miami-Dade $0.10 2

Seamar Divers, Inc. Miami FL Miami-Dade $1.53 20

Seamar Divers, Inc. Robert LA Tangipahoa $0.06 1

Seamar Divers, Inc. Stafford TX Fort Bend $23.40 65

Seaquest Diving, LLC Houston TX Harris $0.10 2

Submersible Systems, 

Inc. Patterson LA St. Mary $1.30 14

Superior Offshore 

International LLC Lafayette LA Lafayette $8.39 70

Superior Offshore 

International LLC Broussard LA St. Martin $3.76 50 

Superior Offshore 

International LLC Houston TX Harris 40

T & T Marine Salvage, 

Inc. Galveston TX Galveston $1.84 22 

Tiburon Divers, Inc. New Iberia LA Iberia

Tiburon Divers, Inc.

The 

Woodlands TX Montgomery
A-52

Table A-17. Locations Offering Diving Services in the Gulf of Mexico (continued). 

Company Name Parent Company City State County 

2007 

Revenues 

(Millions)

2007 

Employees

Titan Salvage

Crowley Maritime 

Corporation

Pompano 

Beach FL Broward $193.00 30

Triton Diving Services, 

LLC Metairie LA Jefferson $8.00 65 

U.S. Underwater 

Services

Neptune Marine 

Services Burleson TX Johnson $11.00 50 

Totals $2,072.50 3,567