Posts
All Comments
Skills/Requirements:
1. Speak Spanish FLUENTLY
2. Strong English and Spanish written and verbal skills
3. 1-2 years experience as Receptionist/Administrative Support in Law Office
4. Ability to prioritize multiple tasks
5. Organized
Part Time Position, approx 20-25 hours per week. May grow into full time position. Posting ID: 3569546512
Posted: 2013-01-24, 5:32PM PSTEdited: 2013-01-24, 5:32PM PSTemail to a friendQualifications
Positive attitude and strong aptitude for learning
Personable, Self, Starting, energetic
Professional appearance and demeanor
Strong organizational skills
Excellent verbal and Written communication skills
THIS POSITION REQUIRES YOU TO BE bilingual (written and spoken) in English and Spanish
Strong customer service skills needed
Cold calling to set up appointments
Professional Phone manner
Thorough follow-up with customers, team members and entire company.
Flexible and able to take on new and different responsibilities as needed
Presentations and e-mail marketing campaigns.
Must be able to prioritize and carry out duties and handle proprietary information in a confidential manner.
Assist in the development, coordination and creation of multiple, time sensitive direct mail programs, newsletters, advertisements, flyers, sales support, brochures,
Conduct research, compile data, and prepare papers for consideration and presentation to managers.
Must be able to organize projects, manage deadlines/timelines and report on progress of multiple projects assigned by manager.
Assist, prepare and attend meetings with owner- create proposals, reports and spreadsheets
Maintain the scheduling of appointments, meetings and travel arrangements within complex calendar
Manage office correspondence, streamlining information accordingly
Analyze and craft internal documents determine significance and distribute
Complete multiple, competing projects within a strict deadline
Support owner and act as key liaison in all office inquires.
Flexible and able to take on new and different responsibilities as needed
Minimum Two years relevant work experience required
A high level of skill in Microsoft applications
Strong computer skills (Microsoft Office Excel, word, QuickBooks (POS), etc)
Please email resume, cover letter and salary history. Only those who have included a cover letter and salary requirements will be considered.
Location: WestwoodCompensation: Based upon experiencePrincipals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.Please, no phone calls about this job!Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.PostingID:3500707195
Last week’s National Research Council report on hydraulic fracturing and earthquakes pretty much ends up where a number of scientists are on the correlation between fracking and quakes: that energy development from shale formations poses a low risk for tremors of significance. The report said more attention should be given to injection wells, which are used for waste disposal by a number of industrial enterprises, not just the oil and natural gas industry. AP science writer Seth Borenstein’s take on the report is here.
API, America’s Natural Gas Alliance and the American Exploration & Production Council have produced a couple of informational tools on hydraulic fracturing and seismic activity and underground injection control (UIC) wells that are especially timely with release of the council’s report.
Highlights from the fracking document:
Hydraulic fracturing is done with a mixture of more than 99.5 percent water and sand. The other one-half of 1 percent is chemical – including anti-bacterials and lubricants. See the FracFocus.org site for more on fracking fluids.Fracturing that occurs thousands of feet below the surface (and below groundwater aquifers) is carefully mapped with sophisticated equipment to optimize recovery of the oil and/or natural gas and to monitor the well itself. In other words, microseismic activity associated with fracking is thoroughly understood.
Highlights from the UIC document:
The U.S. has about 151,000 Class II UIC wells used by the oil and natural gas industry, of which only a handful are being studied for possible links to earthquakes. These wells are a subset of more than 800,000 injection wells nationwide used to dispose of a variety of industrial wastes and for development of various minerals and geothermal energy sources. Here’s a map that shows the state-by-state well distribution:
Injection wells pump fluids into deep rock formations (see graphic). It’s unusual, but in some cases a quake can occur when a number of geological and operational factors come together – especially the presence of hard, dense and brittle crystalline “basement rock.” These quakes are almost always small, below the level that would be felt on the surface.
For more information, check out the Energy From Shale website.
Here’s what caught our eye in an otherwise relatively benign New York Times editorial on shale natural gas and hydraulic fracturing:
“For their part, the oil and gas companies — both the ExxonMobils and the mom-and-pops that abound in hydrofracturing — need to drop their warfare against necessary regulations.”
And later:
“Stronger federal rules are plainly needed.”
Last things first: Stronger federal rules? Where has the Times’ editorial board been the occasions when EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has downplayed the notion of federal shale gas regulation overlaying existing state regulation? Here’s Jackson last fall:
“We have no data right now that lead us to believe one way or the other that there needs to be specific federal regulation of the fracking process. … So it's not to say that there isn't a federal role, but you can't start to talk about a federal role without acknowledging the very strong state role.”
And a couple of days later, on MSNBC:
“States are stepping up and doing a good job. It doesn’t have to be EPA that regulates the 10,000 wells that might go in.”
It’s likely Jackson knows there’s not much the feds could add to the competent, efficient oversight that state regulators already are providing. And the Times doesn’t explain what it believes federal regulation – probably duplicative, almost certainly unnecessary – would accomplish.
In fact, industry recognizes the need for regulation. We just believe it’s best handled by the states. That’s why we’ve worked with the states through the STRONGER organization to develop regulatory regimes tailored for their specific circumstances. API and its members also have worked hard to develop industry standards that often form the basis for state regulations – on wellbore integrity, water management, community relations and more. Industry supports disclosure through the FracFocus online chemical registry.
All of the above address the editorial’s other assertion – that energy companies need to “drop their warfare” against regulation. Sorry, but the real warfare here has been waged by the Times in its “Drilling Down” series, a collection of inaccuracies, misrepresentations and manipulations that the Council on Foreign Relations’ Michael Levi dubbed a “war on shale gas.” This has included flawed reporting on mortgages, leases and the economic future of shale gas – at one point drawing a penalty flag from the newspaper’s own ombudsman.
So, while noting the editorial’s positive points about shale gas, we encourage the newspaper’s editorial board to get up to speed on the good work states are doing to regulate industry activity, as well as industry efforts to get shale gas development right.
Here’s what caught our eye in an otherwise relatively benign New York Times editorial on shale natural gas and hydraulic fracturing:
“For their part, the oil and gas companies — both the ExxonMobils and the mom-and-pops that abound in hydrofracturing — need to drop their warfare against necessary regulations.”
And later:
“Stronger federal rules are plainly needed.”
Last things first: Stronger federal rules? Where has the Times’ editorial board been the occasions when EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has downplayed the notion of federal shale gas regulation overlaying existing state regulation? Here’s Jackson last fall:
“We have no data right now that lead us to believe one way or the other that there needs to be specific federal regulation of the fracking process. … So it's not to say that there isn't a federal role, but you can't start to talk about a federal role without acknowledging the very strong state role.”
And a couple of days later, on MSNBC:
“States are stepping up and doing a good job. It doesn’t have to be EPA that regulates the 10,000 wells that might go in.”
It’s likely Jackson knows there’s not much the feds could add to the competent, efficient oversight that state regulators already are providing. And the Times doesn’t explain what it believes federal regulation – probably duplicative, almost certainly unnecessary – would accomplish.
In fact, industry recognizes the need for regulation. We just believe it’s best handled by the states. That’s why we’ve worked with the states through the STRONGER organization to develop regulatory regimes tailored for their specific circumstances. API and its members also have worked hard to develop industry standards that often form the basis for state regulations – on wellbore integrity, water management, community relations and more. Industry supports disclosure through the FracFocus online chemical registry.
All of the above address the editorial’s other assertion – that energy companies need to “drop their warfare” against regulation. Sorry, but the real warfare here has been waged by the Times in its “Drilling Down” series, a collection of inaccuracies, misrepresentations and manipulations that the Council on Foreign Relations’ Michael Levi dubbed a “war on shale gas.” This has included flawed reporting on mortgages, leases and the economic future of shale gas – at one point drawing a penalty flag from the newspaper’s own ombudsman.
So, while noting the editorial’s positive points about shale gas, we encourage the newspaper’s editorial board to get up to speed on the good work states are doing to regulate industry activity, as well as industry efforts to get shale gas development right.
Here’s what caught our eye in an otherwise relatively benign New York Times editorial on shale natural gas and hydraulic fracturing:
“For their part, the oil and gas companies — both the ExxonMobils and the mom-and-pops that abound in hydrofracturing — need to drop their warfare against necessary regulations.”
And later:
“Stronger federal rules are plainly needed.”
Last things first: Stronger federal rules? Where has the Times’ editorial board been the occasions when EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has downplayed the notion of federal shale gas regulation overlaying existing state regulation? Here’s Jackson last fall:
“We have no data right now that lead us to believe one way or the other that there needs to be specific federal regulation of the fracking process. … So it's not to say that there isn't a federal role, but you can't start to talk about a federal role without acknowledging the very strong state role.”
And a couple of days later, on MSNBC:
“States are stepping up and doing a good job. It doesn’t have to be EPA that regulates the 10,000 wells that might go in.”
It’s likely Jackson knows there’s not much the feds could add to the competent, efficient oversight that state regulators already are providing. And the Times doesn’t explain what it believes federal regulation – probably duplicative, almost certainly unnecessary – would accomplish.
In fact, industry recognizes the need for regulation. We just believe it’s best handled by the states. That’s why we’ve worked with the states through the STRONGER organization to develop regulatory regimes tailored for their specific circumstances. API and its members also have worked hard to develop industry standards that often form the basis for state regulations – on wellbore integrity, water management, community relations and more. Industry supports disclosure through the FracFocus online chemical registry.
All of the above address the editorial’s other assertion – that energy companies need to “drop their warfare” against regulation. Sorry, but the real warfare here has been waged by the Times in its “Drilling Down” series, a collection of inaccuracies, misrepresentations and manipulations that the Council on Foreign Relations’ Michael Levi dubbed a “war on shale gas.” This has included flawed reporting on mortgages, leases and the economic future of shale gas – at one point drawing a penalty flag from the newspaper’s own ombudsman.
So, while noting the editorial’s positive points about shale gas, we encourage the newspaper’s editorial board to get up to speed on the good work states are doing to regulate industry activity, as well as industry efforts to get shale gas development right.
Last week’s National Research Council report on hydraulic fracturing and earthquakes pretty much ends up where a number of scientists are on the correlation between fracking and quakes: that energy development from shale formations poses a low risk for tremors of significance. The report said more attention should be given to injection wells, which are used for waste disposal by a number of industrial enterprises, not just the oil and natural gas industry. AP science writer Seth Borenstein’s take on the report is here.
API, America’s Natural Gas Alliance and the American Exploration & Production Council have produced a couple of informational tools on hydraulic fracturing and seismic activity and underground injection control (UIC) wells that are especially timely with release of the council’s report.
Highlights from the fracking document:
Hydraulic fracturing is done with a mixture of more than 99.5 percent water and sand. The other one-half of 1 percent is chemical – including anti-bacterials and lubricants. See the FracFocus.org site for more on fracking fluids.Fracturing that occurs thousands of feet below the surface (and below groundwater aquifers) is carefully mapped with sophisticated equipment to optimize recovery of the oil and/or natural gas and to monitor the well itself. In other words, microseismic activity associated with fracking is thoroughly understood.
Highlights from the UIC document:
The U.S. has about 151,000 Class II UIC wells used by the oil and natural gas industry, of which only a handful are being studied for possible links to earthquakes. These wells are a subset of more than 800,000 injection wells nationwide used to dispose of a variety of industrial wastes and for development of various minerals and geothermal energy sources. Here’s a map that shows the state-by-state well distribution:
Injection wells pump fluids into deep rock formations (see graphic). It’s unusual, but in some cases a quake can occur when a number of geological and operational factors come together – especially the presence of hard, dense and brittle crystalline “basement rock.” These quakes are almost always small, below the level that would be felt on the surface.
For more information, check out the Energy From Shale website.
