Should I make the switch to pipeline engineering for an Oil/Gas company from Land Development? Have any civil engineers made the switch to pipeline engineering? Would you suggest it? Any advice? Was the pay competetive for you? I just received an offer letter but the pay isn't much different from what I make now. [6 yrs experience (4.5 as EIT, 1.5 as PE)in linear infrastructure and land development]
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Make the switch to Pipeline Engineering...? 1
- Thread starter Denob
- Start date
depends on if you want a job or not. most of our land development staff has been laid off. As a result, these out of work engineers are flooding the market trying to get other positions. Take the bird in the hand unless you already have the two in the bush...
You have picked two civil engineering sectors to specialize in and both of those sectors have highly cyclical business cycles.
Right now, the development sector is tanking and the petroleum business is on the upswing. So obviously, the job prospects are much better in the petroleum sector.
The pay in either sector is equivalent. However, in the boom times of either sector, you will probably get some overtime, so you will make more when the business is on the upswing. You should probably expect more travel in the petroleum business than land development, but the amount of travel would depend somewhat on the type of company that you work for.
Your job satisfaction probably depends more on the people that you are working with than the business sector where you are employed.
I would go for the petroleum sector right now.
Right now, the development sector is tanking and the petroleum business is on the upswing. So obviously, the job prospects are much better in the petroleum sector.
The pay in either sector is equivalent. However, in the boom times of either sector, you will probably get some overtime, so you will make more when the business is on the upswing. You should probably expect more travel in the petroleum business than land development, but the amount of travel would depend somewhat on the type of company that you work for.
Your job satisfaction probably depends more on the people that you are working with than the business sector where you are employed.
I would go for the petroleum sector right now.
-
1
- #4
FishScreener
Civil/Environmental
The basics of pipeline design are pretty much the same. There are a few differences such as pig access on oil lines, and manways on large diameter water transmission mains.
But, the skill set on pipe wall sizing, fitting selection, anodic protection, etc., is the same stuff.
You are at the beginning of your career so diversity at this point should be a good thing.
Plus as others have said, the land development / general civil is in a down cycle, and petroleum is on the up side of its cycle.
But, the skill set on pipe wall sizing, fitting selection, anodic protection, etc., is the same stuff.
You are at the beginning of your career so diversity at this point should be a good thing.
Plus as others have said, the land development / general civil is in a down cycle, and petroleum is on the up side of its cycle.
FishScreener
Civil/Environmental
Something else that occurred to me after my last post:
How well have you examined the offer?
Back when I first go out of school, the firm I was at needed to hire three junior structural engineers. We were in Las Vegas, and had signed agreements to do a hotel tower, and some bridges.
The Boss (Jack), interviewed three guys from Los Angeles, (who new Cole, one of our guys, from when he worked at the firm they were with in LA). Jack offered them what they were making, plus moving expenses.
They were all insulted at the offer and turned it down. Cole said something to me, and as Jack was my "mentor", I asked him about it.
His response was that, since: the cost of living in Vegas was 20% lower; housing was over 40% lower; there were no state or local income taxes in Las Vegas; and sales taxes were 1.5% lower, he had in fact offered them a substantial raise. He had made the offer that way on purpose, to see how good of engineers they really were. If they weren't smart enough to do a real cost/benefit analysis of the offer, he did not want them. When I hired on, he offered me a July 5, start date. I was smart enough to know that by doing that, I missed half a year of profit sharing, and told him that I would prefer the last Monday of June instead, and why. He hired three of us just out of college kids that year. I was the one he chose to mentor.
When I left that firm, I took a dollar per hour cut. But I gained: three weeks of vacation time; three weeks of sick time; seven additional paid holidays; and better medical, dental, and retirement benefits. After I analyzed it, the benefit per hour worked was about fifty-cents an hour more.
So, do a good analysis of what the offer is, before you decide.
How well have you examined the offer?
Back when I first go out of school, the firm I was at needed to hire three junior structural engineers. We were in Las Vegas, and had signed agreements to do a hotel tower, and some bridges.
The Boss (Jack), interviewed three guys from Los Angeles, (who new Cole, one of our guys, from when he worked at the firm they were with in LA). Jack offered them what they were making, plus moving expenses.
They were all insulted at the offer and turned it down. Cole said something to me, and as Jack was my "mentor", I asked him about it.
His response was that, since: the cost of living in Vegas was 20% lower; housing was over 40% lower; there were no state or local income taxes in Las Vegas; and sales taxes were 1.5% lower, he had in fact offered them a substantial raise. He had made the offer that way on purpose, to see how good of engineers they really were. If they weren't smart enough to do a real cost/benefit analysis of the offer, he did not want them. When I hired on, he offered me a July 5, start date. I was smart enough to know that by doing that, I missed half a year of profit sharing, and told him that I would prefer the last Monday of June instead, and why. He hired three of us just out of college kids that year. I was the one he chose to mentor.
When I left that firm, I took a dollar per hour cut. But I gained: three weeks of vacation time; three weeks of sick time; seven additional paid holidays; and better medical, dental, and retirement benefits. After I analyzed it, the benefit per hour worked was about fifty-cents an hour more.
So, do a good analysis of what the offer is, before you decide.
Understand your point, but there seems to be some error in you math. You state the benefit per hour worked was about fifty-cents an hour more, but that is impossible unless it is 1958 and you are only making $3 per hour.
Hours worked = 52 weeks per year - 6 weeks - 56 holiday hours = 2080 - 296 = 1,784
Benefit = 1 - (2080 - 296)/2080 = 14.23% less hours worked per year.
If your benefit is $.50 per hour worked, then you are only making ($.50/ .1423) - .50 = $3 per hour
As a check:
1,784 hours worked * $3.50 per year = $6,244 per year is the same annual salary as
2,080 * $3.00 per hour = $6,240 per year
So if you were making $4 per hour in 1958 ($1 per pay cut), you would be taking a 25% pay cut to get the time off.
In today's world, for someone making $50,000 per year, three weeks of vacation time; three weeks of sick time; seven additional paid holidays; and better medical, dental, and retirement benefits would be worth at least $3.50 per hour worked.
Perhaps the other fellows were the smart ones. Why take a substantial cost (15+%) in your fringe benefits to work for Jack?
Hours worked = 52 weeks per year - 6 weeks - 56 holiday hours = 2080 - 296 = 1,784
Benefit = 1 - (2080 - 296)/2080 = 14.23% less hours worked per year.
If your benefit is $.50 per hour worked, then you are only making ($.50/ .1423) - .50 = $3 per hour
As a check:
1,784 hours worked * $3.50 per year = $6,244 per year is the same annual salary as
2,080 * $3.00 per hour = $6,240 per year
So if you were making $4 per hour in 1958 ($1 per pay cut), you would be taking a 25% pay cut to get the time off.
In today's world, for someone making $50,000 per year, three weeks of vacation time; three weeks of sick time; seven additional paid holidays; and better medical, dental, and retirement benefits would be worth at least $3.50 per hour worked.
Perhaps the other fellows were the smart ones. Why take a substantial cost (15+%) in your fringe benefits to work for Jack?
You do not say where you are located, but could I make a suggestion for you if possible to attend a gathering of such piping-type engineers to interact/interface with them, and see what they do/and what kind of birds they are etc? In this regard, there is an ASCE Pipeline Division International Conference scheduled for July 2008 in Atlanta, GA, that might provide you this opportunity (you can see details/access through the portal ). While this is a relatively small ASCE group, compared to the highway and other construction etc.-type guys, and you may not see the parking lot crammed with stretch limos and up-scale Porsches from this group, I think it is however basically an honorable profession :>)
HorseKrazy
Civil/Environmental
- Mar 26, 2008
- 1
I'm not sure that I completely agree that general civil engineering is on the down swing. Here in Az, civil engineers are at a premium. We get new grads from the UofA and ASU who are here for a year or two and then leave to work in states all over the country. In fact, the last twelve of ours left to go to California, which is supposed to be one of the worst markets in the country right now.
A college friend of mine is an engineering recruiter and he cant fill jobs fast enough. He works for Raytheon and is offering jobs to anyone with an engineering degree.
A good friend of mine is a retired Exploration Engineer with Chevron. He told me long ago that petroleum was a lot like civil engineering, with a better paycheck (at least in his case). There will always be a need for both. And a pipeline engineer is included in that. There's no likelihood of that changing anytime soon.
Just my .02
A college friend of mine is an engineering recruiter and he cant fill jobs fast enough. He works for Raytheon and is offering jobs to anyone with an engineering degree.
A good friend of mine is a retired Exploration Engineer with Chevron. He told me long ago that petroleum was a lot like civil engineering, with a better paycheck (at least in his case). There will always be a need for both. And a pipeline engineer is included in that. There's no likelihood of that changing anytime soon.
Just my .02
I'm in Arizona too, and 6 months ago I would have agreed that civil was up. However, in that 6 months nearly our entire land development group has shrunk to a 1/4 of it's size. Most of those engineers and designers have left to find other jobs. Our public works group is in a moderate slow down. We are now beginning to compete with the land development engineering companies for the public works projects that are coming out. We have not layed anyone off yet, but we are not anxious to hire right now either.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question