Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments »
Sable Offshore Corp. may use an emergency restart order from Energy Secretary Chris Wright as legal authority to continue transporting Santa Ynez Unit production through the onshore pipeline system.
Judge Stephen V. Wilson said the Defense Production Act (DPA) is a “significant statutory grant of authority to the executive, giving the President substantial discretionary power to compel private industry, allocate resources, and incentivize domestic production for national defense.”
The opinion also granted the Trump administration’s request to modify a federal consent decree entered in 2020 which governs the restart of the Las Flores pipeline system.
The order removes the California Office of the State Fire Marshal as the primary agency responsible for Sable’s compliance with the oil spill consent decree, and substitutes the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation | Tagged California, California Fire Marshal, consent decree, Defense Production Act, Judge Stephen Wilson, PHMSA, Sable Offshore, Santa Ynez Unit | Leave a Comment »
Gulfwide, Chevron was high bidder for 9 of the 10 blocks they sought vs. 6 of 9 for Oxy, 5 of 8 for Shell, 5 of 6 for BP, and 5 of 5 for Equinor.
US supermajors and historically important Gulf producers, Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips, were no-shows once again.
Bidding was spirited among the “big dogs” for KC Block 258, with BP taking the prize (assuming their $7.5 million bid is accepted). Chevron rebounded by taking KC 430, outbidding Oxy and Shell. (See below)
Among the large independents, LLOG batted 8 for 8, Murphy 6 for 8 (including the sale’s highest bid of $7.7 million), Talos 2 for 2, and Woodside 1 for 2. Our favorite tribal corporation, Red Willow Offshore (Southern Ute Tribe), partnered with LLOG, Navitas, Houston Energy, and CL&F Offshore on the high bid for Atwater Valley Block 63.
Murphy was the top $$$ bidder among all participating companies (see below). In 2025, Murphy was the Gulf’s 5th leading oil producer, trailing only Shell, BP, Chevron, and Oxy.
The sale’s highest bid ($7.7 million) was for Alaminos Canyon Block 380. The block was previously leased to LLOG, and exploratory drilling was conducted in 2019. LLOG’s lease expired on 12/20/2025, and complete well data were released on 4/24/2026. Murphy must have liked what they saw.
The absence of other bidders for AC 380 reminds us that interpretations and strategies differ. Murphy has had a pretty good track record in the Gulf. We’ll see what happens.
Murphy and Shell valued and competed for 2 other Alaminos Canyon blocks as the summary below indicates, and Murphy was the lone bidder ($4.1 million) for another.
“L” for the “W”? All 5 of Equinor’s high bids (red) formed an “L” in the Walker Ridge area. Equinor was the lone bidder for each (see below). Existing blocks WR 56 and 100 (blue) are Equinor leases. Prior lessee Anadarko drilled on block 143 in 2014
We’ll see how this all worked out in about 10-20 years! 😀
Posted in energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General | Tagged BBG3, bp, Chevron, Deepwater, Equinor, LLOG, Murphy Oil, OCS lease sale, Oxy, Red Willow, Shell, Woodside | Leave a Comment »
The subject Regulatory Agenda is attached. The proposed update to decommissioning requirements (abstract below) should attract attention! I would assume that, in addition to meeting Coast Guard requirements, a toppled structure would have to be accepted into a State reefing program. Otherwise the liability risks would be unacceptably high.
REVISIONS TO DECOMMISSIONING REQUIREMENTS ON THE OCS
Legal Authority: Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1331 to 1356a
Relevant Executive Orders: 14154
Abstract: This rule proposes to set ‘‘topple in place’’ as the default decommissioning standard, on the condition that such circumstances meet U.S. Coast Guard navigational requirements. This proposed rule would also address issues that may include to (1) idle iron by adding a definition of this term to clarify that it applies to idle wells and structures on active leases; (2) abandonment in place of subsea infrastructure by adding regulations addressing when BSEE may approve decommissioning-in-place instead of removal of certain subsea equipment; (3) BSEE approval for platform or facility toppling in place; and (4) other operational considerations.
Timetable:
Action Date FR Cite
NPRM ……………… 07/00/27
NPRM Comment Period End. 10/00/27
No date for a final Arctic drilling or decommissioning financial assurance rule is projected. With regard to the latter, many important issues were raised by commenters, and a new proposal is likely and desirable.
A rule writer’s work is never done! Entire careers have been spent updating a single regulation! 😉
Posted in Alaska, decommissioning, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation | Tagged Arctic drilling, decommissioning, Department of the Interior, financial assurance, idle iron, regulatory agenda, topple in place | 6 Comments »
Despite favorable environmental reviews from both the Obama and Trump Administrations, the California Coastal Commission, empowered by the Courts, voted last week to prohibit the resumption of hydraulic well stimulation at DCOR’s Platform Gilda (map above).
Of course, as is always the case offshore California, the regulatory and legal battles will continue. The Secretary of Commerce may choose to overrule the CCC, in which case further litigation is certain.
This dispute comes at a time when the CCC, which operates with extraordinary autonomy, is undergoing a performance review by Commerce. Needless to say, the Commission and its supporters are not thrilled with the oversight.
In light of the spotlight on “offshore fracking,” I wanted to draw attention to a 2019 National Academies workshop that considered this very issue. I had the opportunity to participate in this workshop and was impressed by the input from industry and govt representatives.
Key points from the workshop:
- If wells are not completed effectively, the value of drilling is negated, and it is impossible to deliver the oil or gas production needed to make the wells economically sustainable.
- The frac pack (as is proposed for Platform Gilda) is one of the most commonly used completion techniques worldwide.
- A gravel pack uses sieved sand as a filter to prevent formation sand from entering the wellbore, while the frac pack combines the gravel pack with hydraulic fracturing to create wide fractures filled with sieved sand that aid in connecting the reservoir to the wellbore.
- Frac packs can create 50- to 250-foot fractures to stimulate production in a well.
- Well stimulation offshore, which has been in practice for decades, has far less negative impact potential than well stimulation onshore.
- Hydraulic fracturing minimizes the number of wells needed to develop a reservoir with the result being less environmental impact potential. This completion technique allows for the development of natural resources not previously considered commercially viable.
- Offshore California, oil and gas formations typically have low permeability, and production is dependent on natural fractures. The objective is to enhance the flow of oil and gas from the tight matrix pores into the fractures.
The workshop graphic below highlights the differences in well stimulation risks onshore vs. offshore. The graphic is a bit unfair in that the onshore risks are being effectively mitigated. The main point is that much of the onshore risk potential doesn’t exist for offshore well stimulation.
Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation | Tagged 2019 workshop, California Coastal Commission, Commerce Dept., DCOR, national academies, offshore fracking, onshore vs. offshore, Platform Gilda, well stimulation | Leave a Comment »
Terms appear to be the same as for the American Samoa Sale to be held on 11/19/2026.
Posted in deep sea mining, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General | Tagged American Samoa, BOEM, Marine Minerals Administration, Northern Mariana Islands, OCS Minerals Lease Sale | Leave a Comment »
Led by Arena’s 9 high bids, shelf operators made a strong showing at Sale BBG3. As illustrated below, the acquiring companies see good opportunities in or near old fields. The BBG3 leases are colored red.
Listed in the table below are the shelf blocks receiving bids. According to Marine Minerals Administration (MMA) online data, wells have been drilled on all 12 blocks and production structures were installed on 7.
According to the online structures file, 5 platforms remain on 2 of the blocks. Production and quarters platforms installed by Exxon in 1982 and 1987 remain on ST 54 along with a caisson structure installed by Walter in 2007. Production platforms installed by GOM Shelf (1966) and Arena (2005) remain on WD 133.
Per the borehole file, 3 of the WD 133 wells have not been plugged. These wells were drilled by Arena and are on the F platform, which is one of the two WD 133 platforms that have not been decommissioned.
Also noteworthy, one well that bottoms on ST 314 has not been plugged. That well was drilled by Renaissance from ST 317, which was reacquired by Renaissance at Sale BBG2. The well ceased production in 2019, but the platform from which it was drilled remains in place on the reacquired lease.
Reuse options and decommissioning obligations for the remaining wells and platforms on leases reissued following BBG3 are no doubt topics for discussion between MMA and the operators.
| Block | high bidder | platforms removed | platforms remaining | wells drilled on lease | completed/ unplugged wells |
| EI 277 | Arena | 2 | 0 | 14 | 0 |
| EI 280 | Arena | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| EI 281 | Arena | 2 | 0 | 8 | 0 |
| EI 340 | Arena | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| EI 389 | W&T | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| ST 54 | Arena | 5 | 3 | 69 | 8 |
| ST 314 | Renaissance | 0 | 0 | 8 | 1 |
| PL 25 | Arena | 5 | 0 | 28 | 0 |
| WD 133 | Renaissance | 1 | 2 | 63 | 3 |
| MI 519 | Arena | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| MI 528 | Arena | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| MI 529 | Arena | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Posted in decommissioning, energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation | Tagged Arena Energy, BBG3, Gulf of America, lease sale, oil and gas, Renaissance Offshore, shelf | Leave a Comment »
This article provides information on the history of OCS Lease P-0166 and updates the decommissioning status of California OCS Platforms Hogan and Houchin which are in federal waters offshore Santa Barbara County, California. Listed below are key events in the history of the OCS Lease P-0166. More details are provided in the attachment which was prepared by John Smith who before retiring from BOEM in 2017 was actively involved in the long-running supplemental bond dispute between MMS/BOEM and Signal Hill Services, Inc., which began shortly after MMS approved the assignment of OCS Lease (P-0166) held by Phillps Petroleum Corporation (now ConocoPhillips Corp.) and two other companies to Signal Hill Services Inc. (Signal) in 1991.
| Year/Month | Lease Activity |
| 1967 | U.S. Bureau of Land Management grants OCS Lease P-0166 to Phillips Petroleum Corp., Continental Oil Company, and Cities Service Company. |
| 1967 – 1968 | Hogan and Houchin platforms are installed. |
| 1967 – 2010 | 75 wells were drilled from the platforms, the majority in 1967-1968 and 1970s. |
| February 1991 | MMS approves assignment of the lease to Signal. |
| September 2019 | Production is terminated at platforms. |
| October 2020 | Signal relinquishes the lease to BOEM. |
| November 2020 | BSEE orders ConocoPhillips Corp. (COP) and other predecessor lessees to decommission the Hogan and Houchin platforms. |
| January 2021 | COP and other predecessor lessees file an appeal with IBLA contesting BSEE/BOEM determination they held decommissioning obligations. |
| February 2021 | IBLA grants approval of Partial Stay Agreement between BSEE/BOEM and appellants to maintain and monitor the platforms. |
| November 2024 | Signal files for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. |
| 2021 – 2026 | Monitoring, maintenance and major refurbishment of the platforms are ongoing to support safety of offshore personnel involved in well plugging and abandonment operations. |
Since OCS lease P-0166 was relinquished in 2020, removal of Hogan/Houchin platforms has been stalled by a prolonged dispute over decommissioning obligations between BSEE/BOEM and predecessor OCS lessees (ConocoPhillips Corp., OXY USA Inc., Devon Energy Resources Inc.). The IBLA case has now been ongoing for more than 5 years and has the potential to set a precedent based on the arguments of the appellants who assert:
- They had no accrued decommissioning obligations at the time of the 1991 assignment of the lease because pursuant to their 1961 OCS lease agreement decommissioning obligations did not accrue until the lease was relinquished, which occurred in 2020 when Signal quitclaimed the lease to BOEM.
- The OCS rules changes promulgated in 1997, which stated a lessee’s decommissioning obligation “accrues to the lessee when a well is drilled, the platform or other facility is installed, or the obstruction is created.” (30 CFR 250.110), cannot be applied retroactively.
- The 1961 OCS lease did not include a term by which the lessee agrees to be bound by “future” OCS regulations, which later became a standard provision in OCS lease agreements.
The IBLA case is very concerning because there is currently no financial security available to cover the costs of decommissioning the Hogan and Houchin platforms which were very conservatively estimated by BSEE to total $85 million in 2020. If the IBLA or judicial courts eventually rule COP and former lease owners did not accrue decommissioning obligations, either in whole or in part, the federal government and American taxpayers will be responsible for covering the unfunded decommissioning obligations.
Posted in California, decommissioning, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation | Tagged decommissioning, financial assurance, IBLA, John B Smith, Platforms Hogan and Houchin, Santa Barbara Channel | Leave a Comment »
Official BBG3 stats are attached. Below is a comparison of the three BBG sales.
Notes: The Gulf keeps on rollin’ – this was the 137th Gulf lease sale. Congrats to Bryan Domangue on being named Gulf of America Regional Director for the Marine Minerals Administration! The WWII Museum in New Orleans was a nice venue for the sale.
| Sale No. | BBG1 | BBG2 | BBG3 |
| date | 12/10/2025 | 3/11/2026 | 8/12/2026 |
| companies participating | 30 | 13 | 16 |
| total bids | 219 | 38 | 69 |
| tracts receiving bids | 181 | 25 | 59 |
| sum of all bids $millions | 371.9 | 69.9 | 99.5 |
| sum of high bids ($millions) | 279.4 | 47.0 | 82.7 |
| highest bid company block | $18,592,086 Chevron KC 25 | $21,009,990 bp GC 404 | $7,701,011 Murphy AC 380 |
| most high bids company sum ($millions) | 50 bp 61.0 | 6 Anadarko (Oxy) 4.0 | 9 Chevron/Arena $15.6 (Chevron) 1.3 (Arena) |
| sum of high bids ($millions) company | 61.0 bp | 22.6 bp | 21.5 Murphy |
| most high bids by independent | 14-Murphy | 5-LLOG | 9-Arena |
Posted in energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General | Tagged Arena Energy, Bryan Domangue, Chevron, Gulf of America, Lease Sale BBG3, Murphy Oil | Leave a Comment »
Awaiting the official results.
Arena bid on 9 shelf blocks. Chevron, Shell, Anadarko, BP, Murphy, LLOG, and Equinor were active deepwater bidders.
All bids were below $10 million. Murphy had two $7+ million bids.
Posted in Gulf of Mexico | Leave a Comment »
The pre-sale statistics are attached.
The table below compares the pre-sale stats for BBG3 with those for BBG1 and 2. The number of BBG3 bids, while well below BBG1, which was the first sale in 2 years, bounced nicely from BBG2 levels.
| BBG1 12/10/2025 | BBG2 3/11/2026 | BBG3 8/12/2026 | |
| tracts bid on | 181 | 25 | 59 |
| total bids | 219 | 38 | 69 |
| shelf bids (<200m) | 12 | 2 | 12 |
| deepwater (>400m) | 168 | 23 | 47 |
| companies bidding | 26 | 13 | 12 |
Posted in energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General | Tagged BBG1, BBG2, BBG3, bids, big beautiful Gulf of America, lease sale, MMA, oil and gas, pre-sale stats | Leave a Comment »
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 