Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments »
JL Daeschler shared this fitting goodbye to Dolly Parton from the oilpatch.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged Dolly Parton, I'll Oilwells Love You, JL Daeschler | Leave a Comment »
In pursuit of a “$4 trillion industry” funded by tax credits and energy consumers, Exxon tarnished the corporation’s impressive Gulf of Mexico legacy by acquiring oil and gas leases solely for carbon disposal purposes (see caption above). That gambit and Repsol’s copycat strategy have apparently failed.
On June 29, 2026, Energy Intelligence reported that Exxon had begun relinquishing those leases. Kudos to those in the Administration who refused to buckle under pressure from lobbyists seeking to convert the leases to authorize carbon disposal.
That said, this sad chapter in OCS program history may not be over. 94 of the disposal leases have yet to be relinquished. Here is the current status of the improperly acquired leases:
- All 36 of the Repsol’s Sale 261 leases were relinquished effective 2/19/2026.
- All 69 of Exxon’s Sale 259 leases were relinquished effective 6/11/2026.
- None of Exxon’s 94 Sale 257 leases have been relinquished to date. Perhaps these leases are being held as a hedge in case there is another legislative end run or a policy decision that would facilitate conversion of the leases, or for tax/accounting purposes? As things stand, the leases expire in Oct. 2027.
Exxon and Repsol attempted to gain an unfair advantage by acquiring their preferred disposal leases without competition and before leasing and regulatory processes had been established. One could argue that they were fortunate to have avoided criminal penalty consideration given that they knowingly and willfully violated the terms of the sale notices.
The companies will lose their bonus payments which amounted to approximately $25 million for Exxon and $4 million for Repsol. They have also been paying rental fees of $10/acre/year for the Sale 259 and 261 leases, and $7/acre/year for the Sale 257 leases.
Lastly, one company was directly affected by the improper bidding. Focus Exploration was a second bidder for one of the blocks acquired by Exxon in Sale 259 (red in map below). Presumably, Focus was interested in acquiring the tract for oil and gas exploration purposes, but their bid was a bit lower than Exxon’s. Should Focus be compensated in some manner?
Posted in CCS, energy policy, Regulation | Tagged carbon disposal, carbon sequestration, CCS, Exxon, Focus Exploration, oil and gas leasing, Repsol | Leave a Comment »
Abstract from a German study published in Nature – “Projected impacts of future offshore wind farms on coastal precipitation over the Northwest European shelf”:
“Offshore wind energy plays a central role in reaching the European Green Deal target of a climate-neutral Europe by 2050. In this study, we simulate offshore wind development for 2023, 2030, and beyond 2050 across the Northwest-European Shelf, using various turbine sizes over a 10-year period, an approach not previously undertaken. For the post-2050 scenario, we assess the maximum potential deployment within all currently identified development zones in North Sea countries. Results indicate that large-scale offshore wind farm expansion can reduce surface wind speeds by up to 2–3 m s⁻¹. Notably for post-2050 scenario, precipitation decreases by 10–12% in coastal regions of Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, and by more than 15% in parts of Jutland, Denmark, particularly under south-westerly winds. Conversely, precipitation increases over the wind farm areas. These findings suggest that extensive offshore wind deployment may significantly alter regional climate patterns, highlighting the need for further multi-model investigations to reduce uncertainty.”
The study found that existing wind farms under the 2023 and 2030 scenarios indicate small effects on precipitation, with effects primarily confined to marine areas. However, the large-scale deployment of offshore wind farms in the Northwest-European shelf, as projected for 2050, has a significant and spatially distinct impact on regional precipitation patterns, specifically in the regions over northern Germany and Denmark, highlighting the critical role of scale and turbine density in driving these changes.
Posted in energy policy, Offshore Wind | Tagged 2050 scenario, German study, Nature, Northwest Europe, Offshore Wind, precipitation effects | Leave a Comment »
Evan Zimmerman shared this fascinating video. Worth watching.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged Evan Zimmerman, orcas | Leave a Comment »
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 »
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 