Happy New Year! 2025 is sure to be an exciting year for offshore energy operations and policy. Thanks for joining the parade!
Remember that energy and prosperity are not zero-sum games!
BOE is an independent, unsponsored, ad-free blog that is dedicated to offshore safety, pollution prevention, energy production, effective regulation, and responsible energy policy.
Opinions on Jimmy Carter’s presidency vary, but he merits praise for his administration of the OCS program from 1/1977 to 1/1981. Carter oversaw an active leasing program in all OCS regions. On the operations side, he appointed Don Kash to head the Conservation Division of the US Geological Survey, the OCS regulator at the time. Dr. Kash was an outstanding leader and a gifted communicator and program manager.
Some of the Carter administration’s impressive accomplishments during his 4 year term:
15 lease sales including 3 offshore Alaska, 3 in the Atlantic, and 1 offshore California
Drilling activity in all 4 regions: GoM, Pacific, Alaska, and Atlantic
North, Mid, and South Atlantic District offices for permitting and inspections
5300 well starts including 97 in water depths > 1000′
314 new platforms including Cognac, the world’s first platform in > 1000′ of water
Comprehensive amendments to the OCS Lands Act (1978)
Annual natural gas production reached nearly 5 tcf (approximately 6 times current OCS gas production)
Annual oil production was approximately 1/2 current levels which is impressive given that the deepwater era was just beginning and shelf wells had relatively low productivity.
The response by the Nantucket group’s attorneys is attached. Key excerpt:
“NMFS absurdly argues that agency officials, in preparing a biological opinion for a project, must ignore information about impacts on endangered species from other offshore wind turbine projects that are planned and in various stages of development and governmental review. Perhaps even more bizarrely, NMFS contends that, in preparing a biological opinion for a project, it must consider the cumulative impacts of planned state and local projects but ignore the impacts of planned federal projects.“
This important S&P Global study is particularly breathtaking for those of us who remember when Gulf of Mexico LNG import facilities were in the advanced planning stages. The shale gas pioneers completely reversed the scenario!
“The LNG industry is critical to serving the world’s energy needs and has rapidly become an integral contributor to the US economy.”
Let’s not repeat the harmful pause in the construction of LNG export facilities. Per S&P Global:
“The impact of an ‘extended halt’ in new US LNG development due to legal and regulatory risks is striking. In this scenario, more than $250 billion in lost contribution to GDP and an average of >100,000 US jobs are at risk. Gas price savings in an ‘extended halt’ are minimal for domestic consumers, with less than 1% gas cost impact per household. Furthermore, 85% of the energy gap from lost US LNG is expected to be filled by fossil fuels from non-US sources.”
With the collapse of Bundeskanzler Scholz’s governing coalition, elections set for 23 Feb, and the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party gaining support, perhaps there is a chance for more rational German energy policy.
Seattle Times: “Don’t block the will of voters on natural gas”
“Nearly 2 million residents voted to approve Initiative 2066, which aims to protect the use of natural gas as an energy source in state law and within Washington’s building codes. This month, climate advocates, joined by King County and the City of Seattle, filed suit in court to block the will of those voters.“
“While the courts will have final say, Gov. Jay Inslee and Democratic legislative leaders support killing off what they see as a misguided and overly broad initiative. Their view brushes aside the concerns of the majority of state voters. Those leaders fail to see a genuine fear that, during the clean energy transition, the fundamental supply of energy to homes and businesses — the basic ability to stay warm, cook food and bathe — is under threat.”
Kudos to the Seattle Times for their common sense editorial. In addition to noting the economic and social necessity of natural gas, it would have been nice if the editorial board had also acknowledged natural gas’s environmental benefits. However, that would have probably been a bridge too far in Seattle.
The reasons for transitioning to natural gas are arguably clearer and better substantiated than the reasons for transitioning from natural gas.
Forbes (USGS map of active wind turbines): “The U.S. Wind Turbine Database contains more than74,695 wind turbines built since 1980, spread between 1,699 wind power projects in 45 states. However, thousands of wind turbines are reaching the end of their operational lifespan and need to be either repowered to make way for updated (often larger) turbines or entirely decommissioned to allow for new uses of the land they occupy. Unfortunately, there is no uniform legal framework to regulate the steps involved, nor is there an accepted industry-wide set of best practices, and the environmental costs are considerable.”
Forbes: “As is often the case when new technologies come to market, unintended downstream consequences are not always immediately obvious to the players. Enthusiasm for clean energy initially pushed the first wind turbines into existence in the U.S. without considering the environmental and monetary costs that would be involved in either upgrading or bringing projects to a close later in their life cycle. “
From the Protect Our Coast – NJ Facebook page: “During his interview with Radio Host Dom Giordano on Monday, December 23, NJ Congressman Jeff VanDrew (pictured), stated an executive order, to be signed by President Trump on January 20, 2025 will place a 6 months pause on further construction of Offshore Wind Turbines while our new administration reviews all aspects of these highly controversial structures in our ocean.“
We’ll see what transpires, and if this post is accurate, await clarification and reactions.
The petitioners’ “sole argument” is rather compelling to this non-attorney. Given that multiple offshore wind projects are planned for Right whale habitat, how do you fulfill your endangered species responsibilities by only considering the first project (I.e. Vineyard Wind 1)?
(In light of Vineyard Wind’s performance to date, one could also argue that the Right whale is jeopardized by the Vineyard Wind project alone.)