Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘CCS’ Category

More on the Lease Sale 257 decision

Posted in CCS, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, Offshore Wind, Wind Energy, tagged , , , , on February 2, 2022| Leave a Comment »

The judge correctly dismissed the unfounded claim that new oil and gas leasing would preclude wind development in the Gulf. BOE comments:

  • The number of GoM platforms is down 75% from its peak and continuing to decline.
  • Most new production is in the deepwater GoM and is accomplished with very few, remote and widely dispersed facilities. There are currently only 57 deepwater platforms across the entire Gulf.
  • The wind industry appreciates the synergy between offshore oil and gas and offshore wind operations. Indeed the oil industry has been very supportive of offshore wind, and some of the same operating companies and contractors are major players in both industries.
  • t has been 17 years since the enabling legislation was passed, yet we are still awaiting the first commercial wind project in the US Atlantic. You can’t blame the oil and gas industry for that delay. To the contrary, one can make the case that the presence of oil and gas operations would have accelerated Atlantic wind development.
  • The enabling legislation for offshore wind was drafted by the agency that managed the offshore oil and gas program and recognized the compatibility of oil and wind development. Wind development is clearly a high priority for BOEM, the current OCS land manager.

Will the Administration appeal the court decision to vacate the lease sale or does the decision assist them by reinstating their leasing pause? How will the conflict between the DC court decision and the injunction invalidating the leasing pause (Federal Court for the Western District of Louisiana) be resolved?

What does this mean for the 94 leases that were to have been acquired for carbon sequestration purposes? Will BOEM have a proper CCS sale after conducting an environmental assessment, determining bidding terms and evaluation criteria, and publishing a Notice of Sale? Or will there be a legislative end run that authorizes the issuance of the leases without these steps?

Read Full Post »

$Billions in the Infrastructure Bill for CCS; what could possibly go wrong?

Posted in CCS, climate, decommissioning, energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, tagged , , , on December 28, 2021| Leave a Comment »

Quite a bit per the GAO, and their report only deals with DOE management of demonstration projects. The Infrastructure Bill authorizes $2.5 billion for commercial projects (and much more for other CCS purposes).

DOE provided nearly $684 million to eight coal projects, resulting in one operational facility. Three projects were withdrawn—two prior to receiving funding—and one was built and entered operations, but halted operations in 2020 due to changing economic conditions. DOE terminated funding agreements with the other four projects prior to construction.

DOE provided approximately $438 million to three projects designed to capture and store carbon from industrial facilities, two of which were constructed and entered operations. The third project was withdrawn when the facility onto which the project was to be incorporated was canceled.

GAO

So DOE’s actual success ratio was 0.182 (2 for 11) – not very compelling.

With regard to proposals for offshore carbon sequestration, who will be liable for future cost overruns, operating losses, infrastructure failures including pipeline and well leaks, and decommissioning costs? Who ensures that there will never be any leakage from CO2 disposal reservoirs? Does all of this fall on the Federal government?

Corporations that want to engage in carbon sequestration for commercial or other purposes should fund the projects with their own revenues or fees charged to the companies whose emissions they are collecting. The Outer Continental Shelf is publicly owned and those wishing to dispose of substances should pay a usage fee, be responsible for all costs, and be liable for pollution and damages.

Read Full Post »

Norway’s more structured approach for issuing offshore CCS rights

Posted in CCS, climate, energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Norway, Offshore Energy - General, tagged , , , , on December 20, 2021| Leave a Comment »

Carbon capture and storage
NPD

Several actors have approached the ministry with a desire to be allocated two specific areas for storage of CO 2 . One area in the North Sea and one in the Barents Sea were therefore announced on 10 September in accordance with the storage regulations.

By the application deadline of 9 December, the ministry had received applications from five companies. The Ministry will process the received applications and allocate area in accordance with the storage regulations during the first half of 2022.

Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, Norway

Contrast the situation in Norway with Exxon’s apparent attempt to acquire 94 Gulf of Mexico leases at Oil and Gas Lease Sale 257 solely for CCS purposes. BOEM’s Notice of Sale made no mention of CCS, and there had been no environmental or economic assessment of CCS activity.

And how much will the public pay for grand CCS ventures that (although interim measures) will take years to initiate, add new safety and environmental risks, and may never achieve their objectives? The public burden will no doubt include direct subsidies, tax credits, increased petrochemical prices, and the erosion of purchasing power associated with the resulting inflation pressures.

More on Sale 257 and the CCS bidding.

Read Full Post »

Waiting for the Judge’s ruling on the Sale 257 suit. Will the Carbon Sequestration bidding complicate his decision? Who pays for offshore CCS?

Posted in CCS, climate, energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, tagged , , , , , on December 7, 2021| Leave a Comment »

What, if anything, will the Judge say about the leases that are intended to be carbon sequestration sites? How can BOEM sell OCS leases for purposes that were neither announced nor environmentally assessed? What do EarthJustice and the other plaintiffs think about the sequestration bids given that the environmental community is split on CCS?

Who is going to pay the enormous cost of sequestration on the Outer Continental Shelf – platforms, wells, pipelines, processing equipment, maintenance, monitoring, decommissioning, and more? The Federal government (i.e. taxpayers) features large in this grand scheme, and will no doubt be assuming most of the economic and performance risks. And all of these costs are for disposal purposes, not for offshore energy production of any kind.

Together with the bipartisan infrastructure bill enacted in November, which included more than $12 billion in funding for carbon capture and carbon removal technologies, the Build Back Better legislation would hand fossil fuel companies nearly every item on their carbon capture wishlist.

Inside Climate News

The reality of offshore CCS is not anywhere near as simple as portrayed in the slick graphic below:

houston ccs hub
ExxonMobil

Read Full Post »

Sale 257 and Federal funding of carbon sequestration

Posted in CCS, energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, tagged , , , on November 24, 2021| Leave a Comment »

The text below, excerpted from the Infrastructure Bill (signed 2 days before Sale 257), requires the Federal government to provide funding for commercial CCS projects. $2.5 billion is appropriated. Given these incentives, how does BOEM possibly issue leases for CCS purposes when there was no public notice (as required by 30 CFR § 556.308) that CCS bids would be accepted at the oil and gas lease sale?

SEC. 40305. 
e) Large-scale Carbon Storage Commercialization Program.--
        ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a commercialization program under which the Secretary shall provide funding for the development of new or expanded commercial large-scale carbon sequestration projects and associated carbon dioxide transport infrastructure, including funding for the feasibility,site characterization, permitting, and construction stages of project development.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section $2,500,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2022 through 2026.

Read Full Post »

Almost 15 years ago, the first US offshore CCS Project was proposed for the Atlantic

Posted in CCS, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation, tagged , , , on November 22, 2021| Leave a Comment »

The plan was for SCS Energy’s PurGen One plant in Linden, NJ to burn coal to generate electricity and produce fertilizer. SCS proposed to inject 90% of the CO2 into subsurface reservoirs 70 miles offshore. The project faced strong opposition and was ultimately nixed by the State. The plan had been presented to the Federal offshore regulator (MMS), but the company was advised that there was no legal framework for disposing CO2 beneath the OCS.

Read Full Post »

Sale 257 was actually two separate sales

Posted in CCS, energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, tagged , on November 19, 2021| Leave a Comment »

  • One sale was for oil and gas leases. That sale was carefully planned and publicly announced in accordance with established BOEM regulations and procedures. Proposed and final notices of sale were published for public review. The final notice was published in the Federal Register on 10/4/2021. 32 companies participated in the sale.
  • The second sale was for CCS purposes. That sale was unannounced and had only one participant. That sale was facilitated by a provision in the Infrastructure bill that was signed just 2 days before the lease sale. There was no public notice.

Read Full Post »

More questions on the Sale 257 “CCS leases”

Posted in CCS, energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, tagged , , , on November 18, 2021| Leave a Comment »

  • Should CCS leases have been offered in a separate sale as is the case for salt, sulfur, and wind operations?
  • Was CCS activity considered in the environmental reviews for this sale?
  • Was CCS mentioned in the Notice of Sale?
  • How will these CCS bids be evaluated?
  • Will the CCS bidding influence the Judge’s decision on the pending Sale 257 litigation?

Read Full Post »

Carbon sequestration provision in the new infrastructure legislation seems to explain Exxon’s Sale 257 intentions

Posted in CCS, energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, tagged , , , on November 18, 2021| Leave a Comment » 

Excerpt from SEC. 40307. GEOLOGIC CARBON SEQUESTRATION ON THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF:
(b) Leases, Easements, or Rights-of-way for Energy and Related Purposes.--Section 8(p)(1) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(p)(1)) is amended--
        (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``or'' after the semicolon;
        (2) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; or''; and
        (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(E) provide for, support, or are directly related to the injection of a carbon dioxide stream to sub-seabed geologic formations for the purpose of long-term carbon sequestration.''.
    (c) Clarification.--A carbon dioxide stream injected for the purpose of carbon sequestration under subparagraph (E) of section 8(p)(1) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(p)(1))  shall not be considered to be material (as defined in section 3 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1402)) for purposes of that Act (33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.).
    (d) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall promulgate regulations to carry out the amendments made by this section.

This will be an interesting challenge for the DOI folks (BSEE/BOEM?) charged with writing the regulation given the jurisdictional issues related to capturing onshore CO2 and transporting it to the OCS. Also, when was this provision added to the infrastructure bill and did its apparent obscurity and delayed enactment give certain parties some type of competitive advantage at the sale?

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts