Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘California’ Category

Wind sale bidding continues to baffle and amaze

Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Wind, tagged , on December 7, 2022| Leave a Comment »

California offshore wind sale: 5 leases, $757.1 million in high bids

The California wind sale bidding, while lower than the record Atlantic sale in February, was extraordinary given that the 5 leases are relatively distant from shore (20+ miles) and in water depths (537 to 1284 m) that dictate the use of floating turbines. Generous subsidies, credits, and State mandates no doubt contributed to the seemingly inflated bidding, as did an auction system that is designed to maximize bonus payments.

Given the slow progress in US offshore wind development, the setbacks the industry is experiencing, the added challenges associated with commercial deepwater development, the potential cost burden on taxpayers and power customers, and the government’s financial and policy support, a more development-friendly leasing system would seem to be prudent. BOEM took a step in that direction with the with the limited training and supply chain credits provided for in the Sale Notice, but fundamental changes in the auction system may be desirable.

Read Full Post »

California offshore wind lease sale rolls on (sort of)

Posted in California, Offshore Wind, tagged , , on December 7, 2022| Leave a Comment »

After 20 rounds yesterday, the sale resumes today.

The biggest difference between the wind and the oil and gas programs may be the way the sales are conducted. For oil and gas leases, you submit a single sealed bid. Here is a simplified description of how a wind lease sale is conducted:

  • At the start of each round, BOEM will state an asking price for each Lease Area. A bid at the full asking price is referred to as a “live bid.”
  • If the bidder has qualified for a non-monetary credit, it will meet the asking price by submitting a multiple-factor bid—that is, a live bid that consists of a monetary (cash) element and a non-monetary credit.
  • To participate in the next round of the auction, a bidder is required to have submitted a live bid for one of the Lease Areas (or have a carried-forward bid) in each previous round.
  • As long as there are two or more live bids (including carried-forward bids) for at least one of the Lease Areas, the auction moves to the next round
  • If there was only one live bid (including carried-forward bids) or no live bids for a Lease Area in the previous round, the asking price would not be increased.
  • A live bid would automatically be carried forward if it was uncontested in the previous round, and the bidder who placed the uncontested bid would not be permitted to place any other bid in the current round of the auction.
  • Conversely, if a live bid was contested in the previous round, the bidder who placed the contested bid would be free to bid on any Lease Area in the auction in the next round, at the new asking price.
  • If a bidder decides to stop bidding before the final round of the auction, there are circumstances in which the bidder could nonetheless win a lease.
  • Between rounds, BOEM will disclose to all bidders that submitted bids: (1) the number of live bids (including carried-forward bids) for each Lease Area in the previous round of the auction.
  • In any round after the first round, a bidder may submit an “exit bid” only for the same Lease Area as the bidder’s contested live bid in the previous round. An exit bid is a bid that is greater than the previous round’s asking price, but less than the current round’s asking price.
  • The auction ends (finally) when a round occurs in which each of the Lease Areas in the auction receives one or zero live bids (including carried-forward bids), regardless of the number of exit bids on any Lease Area.

Perfectly clear? You can read the full description in the Sale Notice.

Is this the best way to award offshore wind leases?

Read Full Post »

Interesting twist in Tuesday’s (Dec. 6) Pacific wind lease sale

Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Wind, tagged , , , on December 5, 2022| Leave a Comment »

As a result of a provision in the Inflation Reduction Act, leases may be sold but not awarded. See the paragraph below that was inserted at the end of the sale notice. No wind leases may be issued until Sale 259 oil and gas leases are issued (presumably late next spring).

XV. Compliance With the Inflation Reduction Act (Pub. L. 117-169 (Aug. 16, 2022)(Hereinafter, the “IRA”):

Section 50265(b)(2) of the IRA provides that “[d]uring the 10-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act . . . the Secretary may not issue a lease for offshore wind development under section 8(p)(1)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(p)(1)(C)) unless— (A) an offshore lease sale has been held during the 1-year period ending on the date of the issuance of the lease for offshore wind development; and (B) the sum total of acres offered for lease in offshore lease sales during the 1-year period ending on the date of the issuance of the lease for offshore wind development is not less than 60,000,000 acres.” Section 50264(d) of the IRA provides that “. . . not later than March 31, 2023, the Secretary shall conduct Lease Sale 259[.]” Conducting Lease Sale 259 is needed for BOEM to satisfy the requirements in section 50265(b)(2) of the IRA and issue the leases resulting from this lease sale. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in the IRA prevents BOEM from holding this auction.

Read Full Post »

Another chapter in the Santa Ynez Unit saga

Posted in California, decommissioning, Offshore Energy - General, tagged , , on November 8, 2022| Leave a Comment »

HOUSTON, Nov 6 (Reuters) – Exxon Mobil Corp will take up to a $2 billion loss on the highly leveraged sale of a troubled California offshore oil and gas field that have been idled since a 2015 pipeline spill.

Sable Offshore, a blank check company founded by industry veteran James Flores, will borrow 97% of the $643 million purchase price from Exxon under a five-year loan. Blank check companies raise money to acquire operating businesses. If Flores fails to restart production at the Santa Ynez field by the start of 2026, Exxon could take back the entire operation, Sable disclosed in a filing.Flores will seek permits to restart Santa Ynez and expects to pump about 28,100 barrels of oil and gas per day beginning in 2024, according to a Sable investor presentation. The field has 112 wells and the potential for at least another 100 wells, its presentation showed.

Jim Flores is well known in the offshore industry dating back to his days as CEO of Flores & Rucks, a Gulf of Mexico exploration and production company, in the 1990’s.

And Exxon is no doubt still on the hook for decommissioning these massive platforms.

Read Full Post »

Programmatic EIS for Pacific OCS platform decommissioning presents 4 alternatives, none of which are workable

Posted in California, decommissioning, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation, rigs-to-reefs, tagged , , , , on October 20, 2022| Leave a Comment »

The 23 platforms in Federal waters offshore California are from 33 to 55 years old. Most are no longer producing and 8 are on terminated leases. Some of the platforms are massive structures in water depths up to 1200′ (list of platforms and map below).

BOEM’s draft programmatic EIS evaluates 4 decommissioning alternatives, none of which appear to be workable for a combination of economic, environmental, and legal reasons:

  • Alternative 1 involves the complete removal of platforms and pipelines. This alternative is cost prohibitive and environmentally unfavorable.
  • Alternatives 2 and 3 evaluate prudent and environmentally responsible partial removal options. Unfortunately, partial removal and reefing are not feasible under the California Resources Legacy Act (AB 2503). This legislation holds the donating company perpetually liable for any damages associated with the reef structure. While not assuming any liability, the State nonetheless collects 80% of the savings (reefing vs. complete removal). As a result, it’s no surprise that no company has applied to participate in the State’s program.
  • Alternative 4 calls for leaving platforms and pipelines in place after emptying tanks and flushing pipelines. This “no action” baseline alternative violates the lease agreement and 30 CFR 250.1725, and would only be permissible if an alternate use was approved for the platforms per 30 CFR Part 585.
  • The EIS, with minimal discussion and no supporting data, rules out alternate uses at any of the 23 platforms. This exclusion would seem to be premature given the win-win-win opportunities for industry, government (Federal, State, and local), and academia. These include deferred decommissioning liabilities, a wide range of research opportunities, security and defense applications, weather observation and climate studies, maritime communications support, education programs, marine seismicity studies, and hydrokinetic energy projects. With proper maintenance, platforms can continue to provide social benefits long after all wells are plugged and production equipment is removed. However, once removed, replacement costs would be prohibitive.
  • Lastly, the EIS avoids the thorny financial responsibility issues that will complicate decommissioning decisions. Note the questions raised in the “troubling case of platforms Hogan and Houchin.”
  • Those wishing to comment on the draft EIS should follow the posted instructions.

Read Full Post »

California OCS: #law suits >>> #well starts

Posted in California, Offshore Energy - General, tagged , , , , , on October 10, 2022| Leave a Comment »

➡ Zero 2022 YTD well starts on the California OCS (per BSEE data the only well activity has been for plugging and abandonment purposes)

➡ Many law suits including these cases:

Read Full Post »

Another new Aera era!

Posted in California, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, tagged , , , , , , on September 12, 2022| Leave a Comment »

A fresh start for Aera Energy with IKAV, a German asset management company that purchased Aera from Shell and ExxonMobil.

From 1997 to 2007, Aera operated the Beta Unit offshore Huntington Beach. Since selling those facilities, all Aera operations have been conducted onshore, primarily in Kern County, a historically important California oil production area. Aera will continue to operate these onshore properties for IKAV, which looks like an interesting company.

Platforms Ellen and Elly, Beta Unit

Meanwhile, the Beta Unit has been in the news because of the October 2021 spill from the pipeline transporting Beta Unit production from Platform Elly to shore.

Read Full Post »

Still waiting for the investigation report on the Huntington Beach pipeline spill, but Amplify settles with State and County governments

Posted in California, oil spill response, pipelines, Regulation, tagged , , , , on September 9, 2022| Leave a Comment »

In addition to the settlement with the Dept. of Justice, the pipeline operator has reached settlements with the State and County. In addition to a $4.9 million fine, the company agreed to inspection and leak detection measures similar to those in the Federal settlement.

Read Full Post »

Interesting commitments in the Amplify Energy Plea Agreement (Huntington Beach pipeline spill)

Posted in accidents, California, pipelines, Regulation, tagged , , , , , , , , on August 30, 2022| Leave a Comment »

Dept. of Justice announcement

In addition to the penalty and reimbursement elements of the plea agreement, there are two Amplify commitments that may be of particular interest to BOE readers:

  1. New leak detection system for the pipeline: More information on the leak detection improvements for this low pressure oil pipeline would be helpful.
  2. Notification to regulators of all leak detection alarms:
    • Which regulators? DOT? BSEE? State? All?
    • Real time reporting or periodic compilations? With real time reporting for every alarm, the distinction between the pipeline operator and regulator(s) would be blurred and new organizational and competence risks would be added. The probability of communications errors and delayed decisions would increase, and the operator would no longer be accountable for bad decisions.

Also, given that the investigating agencies have still not issued their report on the October 2021 spill and no action has yet been taken against the shipping companies that caused the pipeline rupture, the congratulatory Coast Guard, EPA, FBI, and DOT quotes in the announcement seem rather premature and self-serving.

Two final thoughts:

Read Full Post »

Amplify Energy settles Huntington Beach pipeline spill litigation

Posted in accidents, California, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, tagged , , on August 26, 2022| Leave a Comment »

Martyn Willsher, Amplify’s President and Chief Executive Officer, commented, “We are pleased to have reached an agreement in principle regarding the civil litigation resulting from the Southern California Pipeline Incident last October. Although we are unable to provide additional detail at this time, we negotiated in good faith and believe we have come to a reasonable and fair resolution. We will continue to vigorously pursue our substantial claims for damages against the ships that struck our pipeline, and the Marine Exchange of Southern California that failed to notify us of the anchor strikes.”

Amplify Energy
Vehled

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »