BSEE data for the past 3 days are tabulated below. Data are as of 12:30 p.m. ET on the specified date. Barring offshore or downstream infrastructure damage, production should begin to resume over the next few days.
Prior to the shale boom, when our national production was lower and the OCS accounted for a larger share, these numbers would have had a more significant effect on oil and gas prices. That is not the case today with only a 2.4% rise in WTI prices.
A media report informs that, as expected, Orsted is marketing the suspended Ocean Wind 1 and 2 leases. BOEM should deny any request to assign these leases. Here’s why:
As discussed in a previous post, those leases should have been terminated when Orsted announced that they would “cease development of the Ocean Wind 1 and Ocean Wind 2 projects.”
For the first time in the history of the US OCS program, the lease suspensions were approved without any work commitment on the part of the operator.
Per the approval letter (attached), the suspensions were granted so Orsted could get “full enjoyment” of the leases by waiting for economic conditions to improve.
The approval relieves Orsted from complying with any deadlines in their approved Construction and Operations Plan.
Under the approved suspensions, Orsted’s only obligations are to reply to requests for information and participate in meetings or consultations as requested. Note that for suspensions of operations on oil and gas leases, the operator must provide “a reasonable schedule of work leading to the commencement or restoration of the suspended activity.”
Suspensions of Operations are for the purpose of providing additional time, where necessary, for diligent operators to meet development milestones and initiate energy production. They are not for the purpose of waiting for improved economic conditions or providing time to sell your leases.
Any request by Orsted to assign these leases should be denied. If BOEM wants to reissue the leases, they may do so at a future sale in accordance with their regulations at 30 CFR Part 285.
Rendering of Ocean City MD morning view per US Wind project plansubmitted to BOEMOcean City NJ offshore wind protest
To those of us from Philly, Ocean City is in New Jersey. To those living in the DMV, Ocean City is in Maryland. These popular beach resorts have distinct personalities, but both are heavily dependent on tourism. They are also aligned against offshore wind development.
On Aug. 5, Ocean City MD Mayor Rick Meehan said the town has hired a law firm, and will join several local co-plaintiffs in suing BOEM if it issues a federal permit to US Wind to construct the US Wind project offshore Maryland. Exactly one month later (9/5/2024), BOEM approved the project. (The 2 US Wind leases have been consolidated, and the project is now known as the Maryland Offshore Wind project).
Halting Atlantic wind projects has been a difficult proposition for local governments, tribes, and grass roots environmental groups given that the wind industry, State and Federal govt, and the large environmental NGOs have been firmly aligned against them. Indeed, the Federal govt considers wind developers to be their partners.
Disputes between State and local governments regarding offshore wind policy are becoming increasingly strident. Such disconnects are not common for offshore oil and gas given that State and local govts are typically aligned either for or against.
The growing level of discord is neither in the best interest of wind developers nor their opponents. Unfortunately, election year politics probably stand in the way of a pause in wind leasing that would facilitate open and unpressured collaboration with coastal residents, power customers, tribes, and fishing organizations on the best path forward.
Sable’s stock price soared after the company reached an agreement with Santa Barbara County that will allow them to comply with the California Fire Marshall’s requirement to install shutdown valves on the onshore pipeline that failed in 2015. That pipeline is necessary to transport production from the Santa Ynez Unit, which is currently operated by Sable.
The significance of a resumption of SYU production is illustrated in the chart below. The 3 SYU platforms accounted for more than 2/3 of Pacific OCS production before the Refugio pipeline spill in June 2015.
This agreement with the County is a major step forward, but there are still regulatory and legal hurdles to clear before production resumes.
In the SEC filing that announces the agreement with Santa Barbara County, Sable affirms their 2024 restart expectations. However, a resumption of production in 2024 is highly unlikely given the administrative challenges that remain. A restart in 2025 would be a major accomplishment and a very good outcome for Sable.
Pasted below is the full text of the SEC filing (emphasis added):
Santa Barbara County (the “County”), on August 30, 2024, acknowledged that the County does not have jurisdiction over Pacific Pipeline Company’s (“PPC”) installation of 16 new safety valves in the County along PPC’s Las Flores Pipeline System (the “Pipeline”) in accordance with Assembly Bill 864. The County’s acknowledgement was delivered in the form of a conditional settlement agreement dated August 30, 2024 (the “Safety Valve Settlement Agreement”) among the County, PPC and PPC’s parent company Sable Offshore Corp. (“Sable”), and a subsequent acknowledgement by the County’s planning and development staff.
The Safety Valve Settlement Agreement is predicated upon a prior settlement agreement between PPC’s predecessor in interest, Celeron Pipeline Company, and the County in a federal case styled Celeron Pipeline Company of California v. County of Santa Barbara (Case No. CV 87-02188), which was executed in 1988.
Pursuant to the Safety Valve Settlement Agreement, PPC agreed to the following additional surveillance and response enhancements in the County:
i. PPC will create a Santa Barbara County-based Surveillance and Response Team, trained in PPC’s Tactical Response Plan, which will be responsible for timely initial incident response and equipped with key resources to deploy in early containment, particularly for those regions of the Pipeline between Gaviota and Las Flores Canyon;
ii. PC will provide Santa Barbara first responders with additional training and equipment to assist in PPC’s incident response efforts; and
iii. PPC will undertake the following Pipeline system enhancements: (1) install and operate and maintain primary and secondary Operations Control Centers in Santa Barbara County, and (2) refurbish the Gaviota pump in its existing station.
PPC, Sable and the County have further agreed, in the Safety Valve Settlement Agreement, to file a stipulation to dismiss the pending lawsuit, Pacific Pipeline Company and Sable Offshore Corp. v. Santa Barbara County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors (Case No. 2:23-cv-09218-DMG-MRW) within 15 days of final installation of all 16 underground safety valves in the County.
Sable affirms that initial restart of production from Sable’s Santa Ynez Unit is expected in fourth quarter 2024.
Chevron slide: Advances in seismic imaging help characterize deepwater development opportunities
A new JPT article features comments from BOE contributor Lars Herbst on advances in HPHT technology, control systems, sensors and transmitters, and automation that are facilitating the next era of deepwater development.
Well capping technology, which provides a tertiary well control capability, is an essential element of post-Macondo exploration and development. Lars points to the importance of BSEE’s unannounced drill program to verify that capping stacks can be transported and installed in a timely manner. Chevron expresses pride in leading a team that deployed and installed a capping stack in 6,200 feet of water in a drill monitored by BSEE. During that drill, a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) closed 10 valves to shut in a simulated well.
Exxon’s Jayme Meier aptly characterizes the challenge and excitement of deepwater development:
“You are floating on a surface, and you have to be able to pinpoint exactly where you’re going to land subsea hardware, exactly where you’re going to moor an FPSO and hit target boxes that are a few feet by a few feet, and they’re 6,000 ft below you,” she said. “It is the most exciting thing that I’ve ever been involved in. And it involves technology, technical know-how, and an ability to really plan the base plan and the contingency plan.”
Advances in deepwater technology are indeed impressive, but continuous improvement must always be the objective. In that regard, Lars rightfully emphasizes the importance of sustaining research through the industry’s up and down cycles.
A new NOAA biological opinion finds that that pile-driving noise associated with the Vineyard Wind project is likely to adversely affect, but not likely to jeopardize, the continued existence of whales, fish or sea turtles listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
This opinion was predictable. On the one hand, denying the adverse effects from extensive pile driving would have been unacceptable to NOAA scientists. On the other hand, a jeopardy finding would have been unacceptable to their political leadership.
If you are wondering how NOAA managed to thread that needle, you will have to wait until their report is publicly available. On Aug. 23, NOAA said the opinion would be available in their library in about 10 days, but the opinion has still not been posted. How do you announce such significant findings without, at the same time, releasing the report?
Understandably, the Nantucket environmental organization ACK for whales is not pleased with either NOAA’s announcement or their failure to release the report:
“We are disappointed NOAA announced the conclusions of its bi-op on the Vineyard Wind 1 construction without releasing the report or the data on which it relied,” ACK For Whales stated. “NOAA’s own data show that in 2023, there were 151 marine mammal strandings in Massachusetts alone with 75 occurring from Jun 2023 to Dec 2023, the months that pile driving was active. This compares to 77 strandings for all of 2015, before OSW activity started – essentially a 100 percent increase. Most of those strandings in 2023 (n=55) occurred from Oct to Dec when VW was racing to get foundations installed. Out of the 47 bases installed in 2023, 68 percent were installed in the last three months of the year.”
In January, BOE raised concerns about the collaborative BOEM-NOAA-wind industry strategy to protect the right whale. Per that strategy, BOEM and NOAA view themselves as partners with the wind industry. Is this biological opinion an example of NOAA working with their partners in accordance with their joint strategy? While regulator-industry collaboration is essential for effective offshore development, be it wind or oil and gas, regulators and operating companies have distinctly different missions and responsibilities, and should not be viewed as partners.
EIA has posted the June 2024 US production data. Gulf of Mexico production was remarkably flat from February through June, with a maximum deviation of only 2.0% (FEB vs. APR) and a deviation of only 0.5% from the beginning of this 5 month period to the end. Looking at the historical EIA data, this is about as stable of a 5 month period as I could find. Presumably, production from the new deepwater facilities is offsetting declines elsewhere as anticipated.
Per ONRR data, the Gulf of Mexico continued to be the top oil producer for Federal lands in 2023. An additional 72.7 million bbls were produced on Native American lands. New Mexico, which has experienced significant Permian basin production growth, ranked second. The Texas Permian was the dominant US oil producer, but that production is almost exclusively on private lands (a big factor in the Permian success story).
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 