[QUOTE=sailonbigwaves;109101]The worst thing about HGM is the office.They have no mariners that work in there office and they don’t want any.The office hates there boat crew and will railroad you 1 chance they get.There is no shore side help .Healthcare is bad it use to be free know you have to pay 300 a month and 1500 deductible dental is worst .No training none. if you work at HGM you better have MOPs .401 k if Shane want he puts money in if he don’t he don’t .I don’t think Shane is da bad guy it’s all the guys below him .Pay is ok not at the top are bottom.they will hire and kid make him you boss and he gets mad will you tell him about the boat cause he don’t understand what you talking about.The company is growing but it’s not place for mariners I know this cause I work at HGM but it may not be for a long period of time if change does not come .Mariner Hell Hold[/QUOTE]
I don’t work there but I don’t think having “non-mariners” working in the office is the problem. I think having “non-mariners” who act like they are mariners or know everything mariners know is the problem. Lets face it, the personnel guy doesn’t need to know a whole lot more than the COI requirements and a few USCG guidelines such as STCW, Sea time letters, etc… A Port Captain doesn’t have to be an engineer, he merely needs to be mechanically inclined and willing to spend time on the boat while in port with the crew. I could go on for other positions. But with saying all of this there needs to be one thing that is non-negotiable, respect towards each party. Everyone needs to have an open mind, willing to learn, a good work ethic and respect.
I have seen some of the best shoreside employees who have never worked a day offshore in their lives but put the time in and learne from the guys on the boat. Vessel experience is definitely a plus but you can’t operate a boat from behind a screen nor manage several boats while offshore operating one single boat. It’s a two way street.
Hope I didn’t disregard your claim about their employees but merely giving my unbiased opinion.
[QUOTE=Fraqrat;109316]Being down here in PCB Florida last couple of months has me doin the double take. I thought mullets and cut off jorts went out 15-20 years ago.[/QUOTE]
I thought when the Roach Motels were torn down and the high rises were built that things would change. But you can’t make game fish out of bottom feeders. But if you check out the mullet heads I think you find they are driving trucks with Alabama plates
Nah these are local boys I’ve seen. I will say though most of them are wearing Crimson Tide gear so they do have that going for them.
i don’t know if it was previously mentioned, but they are also turning out first ever “green boats.” i know a lot of people will hate to hear it, but they are looking for academy guys to run the big boats with environmental science backgrounds.
Having boats that run on LNG is a marketing ploy. There is no where to fill them up and 2 days max before switching back to diesel
[QUOTE=“boatengineer;109579”]Having boats that run on LNG is a marketing ploy. There is no where to fill them up and 2 days max before switching back to diesel[/QUOTE]
I hear Shell or BP (or one of the big companies) are looking into a place in slip C so they can refuel LNG. Anyone else hear this?
Harvey is building their LNG refueling facility in Slip B. I can’t see any of the oil companies building an LNG facility just yet. You don’t have to have an environmental sciences degree to run the boat. They have to have a designated environmental officer onboard for all the extra paperwork. The degree would be preferred but not a requirement. Everyone else onboard can be normal boat trash with or without any kind of degree.
Finely a dedicated paperwork bitch!!
Maybe someone from Harvey can chime in here. Their vessels are Enviro+ so they already have a Safety/Enviro officer onboard the diesel boats they have in service. Maybe someone can enlighten us as to their duties. Our vessels will just have the Enviro designation because we will not have some of the same equipment they have. Which means we don’t need the enviro officer.
[QUOTE=ryanwood86;109580]I hear Shell or BP (or one of the big companies) are looking into a place in slip C so they can refuel LNG. Anyone else hear this?[/QUOTE]
I had heard that Shell was going to be putting up an LNG facility in Fourchon but not sure if it was at Harvey’s new facility or not. Would make sense as they can get it from offshore fairly easy and basically have it ready for use in the OSV’s at a cheap rate. I saw a comment about the boat being only able to operate for 2 days on LNG before swapping back but not sure how accurate that is. Regardless, if you can run 2 days at 1/2 the price of diesel (or less) on a regular basis the saving will add up pretty quick.
Shane pulled the HSSE officers off the current envior+ boats (the 300’s). From what I hear he wasn’t getting what he wanted out of them and didn’t see it as necessary. I think maybe one of the deck officers is the designated enviornmental officer now, or maybe they all get trained in that regard and share the responsibilities.
It’s not that much extra paperwork…just tighter monitoring of and more restricted discharges, types of chemicals you can use (for wash downs and what not), etc. A few extra logs. I haven’t heard if the new envior+ builds coming out will have hse’s or not. Maybe just the ones that go to Alaska?
As for how long they can run on LNG…I don’t know the exact figures, but I believe it’s quite a bit more than 2 days.
LNG range obviously depends on tank size vs burn rate. I looked at the specs a while back and it was two days, but may have changed since then. For enviro concerns it wouldn’t be any different than ships switching off of heavy fuel when entering port to lower pollution. For steady running, I don’t know. Might be cheaper but won’t go as far…sort of like that damned ethanol in the gas!
[QUOTE=ryanwood86;109580]I hear Shell or BP (or one of the big companies) are looking into a place in slip C so they can refuel LNG. Anyone else hear this?[/QUOTE]
The following is from a Shell Media Release:
In the Gulf Coast Corridor, Shell plans to install a small-scale liquefaction unit (0.25 million tons per annum) at its Shell Geismar Chemicals facility in Geismar, Louisiana, in the United States. Once operational, this unit will supply LNG along the Mississippi River, the Intra-Coastal Waterway and to the offshore Gulf of Mexico and the onshore oil and gas exploration areas of Texas and Louisiana. To service oil and gas and other industrial customers in Texas and Louisiana, Shell is expanding its existing relationship with fuels and lubricants re-seller Martin Energy Services, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Martin Resource Management Corporation (MRMC). MRMC and its publicly traded affiliate, Martin Midstream Partners L.P. will provide terminalling, storage, transportation and distribution of LNG.
Shell has a memorandum of understanding with Edison Chouest Offshore companies (ECO) to supply LNG fuel to marine vessels that operate in the Gulf of Mexico and to provide what is anticipated to be the first LNG barging and bunkering operation in North America at Port Fourchon, Louisiana. The LNG transport barges will move the fuel from the Geismar production site to Port Fourchon where it will be bunkered into customer vessels.