Posted in Alaska, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, tagged BBC1, Cook Inlet, lease sale, no bids, oil and gas on March 4, 2026| Leave a Comment »
The results of today’s Cook inlet oil and gas lease sale are disappointing, but not surprising.
BOEM: At this time, no bids have been received. In accordance with OBBBA, we will continue to hold leasing opportunities for Cook Inlet so that industry has a regular, predictable federal leasing schedule that ensures we achieve President Trump’s American Energy Dominance Agenda.
Posted in Alaska, Offshore Energy - General, tagged Cook Inlet, Hilcorp, lease sale, oil and gas on March 3, 2026| Leave a Comment »
Expectations are low for tomorrow’s Cook Inlet oil and gas lease sale. The last Cook Inlet sale (2022) attracted only one bid (Hilcorp – $63,983).
The final sale notice is attached. The terms are favorable, most notably the 1/8 royalty and 10 year primary lease term.
Hopefully, we’ll be pleasantly surprised by the results.
Posted in Alaska, energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, tagged BBG1, BOEM, carbon disposal, Cook Inlet, Gulf of America, John Rankin, oil and gas leasing, red jacket, tract evaluation on February 11, 2026| Leave a Comment »
To date,BOEM has deemed 96 of the 181 BBG1 high bids to be acceptable. No high bids have been rejected. Although the sale was “beautiful but not big,” the bids were relatively strong on a per acre basis. The number of rejected bids may thus be quite low.
No bids were accepted during BBG1’s Phase 1 review. This means that none of the tracts receiving bids were determined to be nonviable as was the case for the 199 tracts that were improperly acquired for carbon disposal purposes in Sales 257, 259, and 261. (Unsurprisingly, neither of the acquiring companies has submitted an exploration plan for any of these CCS leases. The leases will likely expire without activity. Much to the dismay of the large and diverse group of opponents, the carbon disposal industry is focusing on onshore locations along the Gulf Coast.)
Meanwhile, a Cook Inlet lease sale is scheduled for March 4, and another Gulf of America sale will be held on March 11. Despite attractive terms, don’t expect either to be a banner “red jacket” lease sale. (See the John Rankin recognition below.)
Posted in Alaska, deep sea mining, energy policy, tagged Alaska, BOEM, lease sale, offshore minerals, Outer Continental Shelf on January 31, 2026| Leave a Comment »
“The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is initiating the first steps that could potentially lead to a lease sale for minerals on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) offshore Alaska by publishing this request for information and interest (RFI).”
The Federal Register Notice is attached.
Posted in accidents, Alaska, tagged Alaska, Doyon 26, largest, North Slope, rig topples on January 25, 2026| Leave a Comment »
Posted in Alaska, California, energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, Uncategorized, tagged Alaska, California, Draft Proposed OCS Leasing Program, Florida, Gulf of America on November 20, 2025| 2 Comments »
The press release and full program are linked. It looks like the most recent leaks were accurate. See the maps below with the locations and dates. This will stir the pot!
Posted in Alaska, energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, tagged BOEM, Cook Inlet, Gulf of America, OCS leasing, US Dept. of the Interior on August 19, 2025| Leave a Comment »
| Year | Cook Inlet Sale | Gulf of America Sales |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | — | Dec. 10 |
| 2026 | March | March, August |
| 2027 | March | March, August |
| 2028 | March | March, August |
| 2029 | — | March, August |
| 2030 | March | March, August |
| 2031 | March | March, August |
| 2032 | March | March, August |
| 2033–2039 | — | March, August |
| 2040 | — | March |
Posted in Alaska, energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, tagged Big Beautiful Bill, differences, lease terms, offshore leasing, Parliamentarian, royalty rate, Senate vs. House on June 30, 2025| 1 Comment »
The differences between the House and Senate versions of the Big Beautiful Bill are summarized in the table below. (See the previous post on the House version.)
The Senate bill includes royalty and lease terms that favor deepwater lessees, but excludes the provisions in the House bill that streamline the leasing process and minimize litigation risks. At least some of those House provisions were rejected by the Senate Parliamentarian.
The House will vote on the version that passes the Senate. So the Senate version is more likely to be enacted.
| House | Senate | Comment |
| royalty: 12.5% to 18.75% | royalty: 12.5% to 16 2/3% | Lowering the royalty cap to 1/6 (16 2/3%) unduly limits the Secretary’s discretion and may reduce revenues without significantly increasing production. |
| 2 GOA sales/yr over next 15 yrs. | same as House | Would have liked the opportunity for consideration of very limited Atlantic leasing or stratigraphic test drilling, but that is not politically feasible at this time. |
| use Sale 254 form and stips 4-10, may update stips 1-3 | sale 254 lease form and stips 4-9, may update stips 1-3 and 10 | The minor difference favors the Senate version. Stip 10 pertains to restrictions due to Rights-of-Use and Easement for Floating Production Facilities, and needs to be updated with each sale |
| mandates 10 year lease term for water depths >800 m | Although a 10 year term for deepwater leases is generally prudent, the Secretary should be able to choose a shorter term if concerns about timely exploration and diligent development arise (more likely given the increase in leases that could be issued as a result of the 2 sales/yr mandate). | |
| requires approval of subsurface commingling unless there is “conclusive evidence” of safety or ultimate recovery issues | Although BSEE’s policy change on downhole commingling was warranted, the legislative change removes essentially all discretion by mandating approval unless there is “conclusive evidence” to the contrary. Conclusive evidence is dependent on production history, at which point it may be too late. | |
| Adherence with the Biological Opinion shall satisfy the Secretary’s obligations under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 | This provision reduces govt/lessee litigation risks | |
| Previous EIS’s for the Gulf of Mexico shall satisfy the Secretary’s NEPA obligation. | Rejected by the Senate Parliamentarian. | |
| Consistency determinations prepared by BOEM for Lease Sale 261 for the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida will satisfy the Secretary’s CZMA obligations. | The States or Parliamentarian may not have been comfortable with this provision which simplifies plan approval processes. | |
| The Secretary may waive any requirement under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act that the Secretary determines would delay issuance of a lease. | Rejected by the Senate Parliamentarian? | |
| A lease must be issued to the highest responsible qualified bidder not later than 90 days after the sale date. | Rejected by the Senate Parliamentarian. | |
| A Governor may nominate for leasing under a lease sale held under this section an area of the OCS that is adjacent to the waters of the State | Never understood the need for this provision. | |
| G&G surveys must be approved within 30 days after a complete application is received. | Not feasible in some cases given endangered species concerns. | |
| A lease awarded under Lease Sale 259 or Lease Sale 261 shall not be set aside, vacated, enjoined, suspended, or cancelled except in accordance with section 5 the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1334). Also, new terms or conditions may not be added to these leases. | Reduces litigation risks. | |
| Any action to approve, require modification of, or disapprove any exploration plan, development and production plan, bidding procedure, lease sale, lease issuance, or permit or authorization related to oil and gas exploration, development, or production, or any inaction resulting in the failure to hold a lease sale shall be subject to judicial review only in a United States court of appeals for a circuit in which an affected State is located. | This provision significantly reduces litigation risks. Rejected by Parliamentarian? | |
| 6+ Cook Inlet sales over next 10 yrs. | 6+ Cook Inlet sales over the next 7 years | |
| 90% of Cook Inlet revenues to the State of Alaska. | 70% of Cook Inlet revenues to the State of Alaska. | The percentages are high, but the revenues are likely to be low. |
Posted in Alaska, energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation, tagged Big Beautiful Bill, Cook Inlet, Gulf of America, litigation, offshore oil and gas leasing, royalty rates, sale requirements on May 23, 2025| Leave a Comment »
Part VIII, Offshore OIl and Gas Leasing, is a good read for those interested in OCS leasing policy. This cleverly crafted part of the bill specifies leasing schedules, streamlines the leasing process, and minimizes litigation risks. Highlights:
Posted in Alaska, energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, tagged Clay HIggins, endorsement, HIggins Bill, limit Presidential withdrawals, OCS Lands Act, Sec. 12(a), Wesley Hunt on January 23, 2025| 2 Comments »
The attached bill not only nullifies most OCS leasing bans, but fundamentally changes the OCS Lands Act provision (Sec. 12(a)) that authorizes such Presidential withdrawals.
The well constructed bill addresses the issues previously raised on the blog. The bill would:
Does this bill have a chance? Realistically, the prospects are probably not good. Although the bill currently has an impressive list of 24 sponsors, all are Republicans and none are from Florida. Absent support from Florida Republicans and some interior state Democrats, it will be difficult to gain traction.
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 