Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘climate’ Category

“Exxon Mobil has led a persistent and apparently successful lobbying campaign behind the scenes to push the US federal government to adopt rules that would allow the conversion of existing oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico into offshore carbon capture and storage (CCS) acreage, according to documents seen by Energy Intelligence and numerous interviews with industry players.” Energy Intelligence

The Energy Intelligence article documents the ongoing carbon disposal lobbying by Exxon and others. Those meetings are okay prior to publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for public comment. However, the article implies that the next step is a final rule: “Whether or not Exxon succeeds will become fully clear when the US issues final rules guiding CCS leasing, expected sometime this year.”

A final rule this year is unlikely, because an NPRM has to be published first for public comment. The only exception would be if BOEM was able to establish “good cause” criteria for a direct final or interim final rule in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act. Such an attempt at corner cutting seems unlikely, especially in an election year when all regulatory actions are subject to additional scrutiny.

Exxon must have thought they had a clear path forward after 11th hour additions to the “Infrastructure Bill” authorized carbon disposal on the OCS, exempted such disposal from the Ocean Dumping Act, and provided $billions for CCS projects. Keep in mind that the Infrastructure Bill was signed just two days before OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale 257, at which Exxon acquired 94 leases for carbon disposal purposes.

What the Infrastructure Bill did not provide is authority to acquire carbon disposal leases at an oil and gas lease sale. Now the lobbyists are apparently scrambling to overcome that obstacle administratively.

BOEM, which arguably made a mistake in accepting irregular carbon disposal bids at the last 3 oil and gas sales, should not amplify Exxon’s unfair advantage (also Repsol at Sale 261) by allowing the conversion of these leases (map below). This is not a small matter given that Exxon has publicly projected that carbon disposal is a $4 trillion market opportunity.

A single company or small group of companies should not be dictating the path forward for the Gulf of Mexico. Super-major Exxon is a relative minnow in the Gulf of Mexico OCS. They have not drilled an exploratory well since 2018, not drilled a development well since 2019, operate only one platform (Hoover, installed in 2000), ranked 11th in 2023 oil production, and ranked 29th in 2023 gas production.

Lastly, and most importantly, public comment on the myriad of technical, financial, and policy issues associated with GoM carbon disposal is imperative. That input is essential before final regulations are promulgated.

At Sale 261, Repsol was the sole bidder for 36 nearshore Texas tracts in the Mustang Island and Matagorda Island areas (red blocks at the western end of the map above). Exxon acquired 163 nearshore Texas tracts (blue in map above) at Sales 257 and 259.

Read Full Post »

Our last Nord Stream pipeline post discussed the Nord Stream AG suit to recover damage costs from insurers Lloyd’s and Arch.

In a court document (excerpt below) obtained by Swedish engineer Erik Andersson, Lloyd’s and Arch assert that the damage was inflicted by, or under order of, a government , and therefore the insurers are not liable.

Given that the suspect governments have denied responsibility, shouldn’t the insurers have to prove that a government did it, and identify the government? That is what Nord Stream AG is asserting in their filing (except below).

Long, but interesting video with Erik Andersson:

Read Full Post »

… and you deniers are fully responsible. There’s a reason why Texas is the most affected state 😉

But fear not, we will line our shores with wind turbines, restrict offshore oil and gas leasing, and subsidize carbon disposal in the Gulf of Mexico. All of this “help” will have a negligible effect on the climate, which will continue to change as it always has and always will.

Read Full Post »

Add Dunkelflaute to the list of interesting and expressive compound German words. Die Dunkelflaute is a dark lull, a period of time in which minimal energy can be generated by the sun or wind. More specifically in German:

Die Dunkelflaute als sogenanntes Kofferwort beschreibt das gleichzeitige Auftreten von Dunkelheit und Windflaute. Diese Wetterlage entsteht typischerweise im Winter und sorgt für geringe Erträge aus Solar- und Windenergie bei gleichzeitig saisonal hohem Strombedarf. Eine Dunkelflaute kann mehrere Tage andauern. Kommen zu Dunkelheit und Windflaute noch niedrige Temperaturen hinzu, die für gewöhnlich den Strombedarf weiter ansteigen lassen, spricht man auch von “kalter Dunkelflaute.”

Note the prolonged Dunkelflaute (below) during which renewables provided minimal power in the middle of winter.

Unsurprisingly, wind and solar output are the lowest when the temperatures are the coldest. See the Danish summary for 2023 below. Note that wind output was also low when temperatures were above 15 deg. C.

Regional wind energy grids are not always an effective solution as Danish physicist Jens Christiansen, a nuclear energy advocate, has illustrated:

‘The wind always blows somewhere.’ Is that really true though? Here I’ve looked at the capacity factors of wind from five northern European countries in August The winds seem highly correlated, and there is almost a week-long period without significant wind anywhere.

Christiansen illustrates Denmark’s reliance on imported electricity:

Paraphrasing Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with electricity imports is that you eventually run out of other people’s electricity.” In the U.S., California imports more electricity than any other state and typically receives between one-fifth and one-third of its electricity supply from outside of the state.

Given that massive battery storage is well beyond current capabilities and restrictions on electricity consumption and economic growth are undesirable, redundant or complementary power sources are essential for a reliable grid. Natural gas power generation is most responsive to variable demand, and is thus a good complement to variable sources like wind turbines and solar panels.

Read Full Post »

…. and gets slammed. 😁

Read Full Post »

I’m posting Sunday’s 60 Minutes segment that focused on deep sea mining and the failure of the US to ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Supplementary comments:

  • Most Federal employees involved with ocean energy policy, past and present, have supported US government ratification of UNCLOS.
  • The offshore industry has long supported UNCLOS. Industry trade associations, including API, IADC, and NOIA, are on the record as favoring ratification.
  • While concerns about UN management of deep sea mining access are understandable, some coordinated administrative structure is needed.
  • The Metals Company and other companies pursuing deep sea mining opportunities clearly disagree with the assertion that ocean floor mineral harvesting is not economically viable.
  • While it’s too soon to draw firm conclusions, there are reasons to believe that deep sea mining is environmentally preferable to onshore mining.

Read Full Post »

Unsurprisingly, the winner is natural gas.

A new report ranks eight key energy industry sectors based on their ability to meet the growing demand for affordable, reliable, and clean electric power generation.

As governments around the nation attempt to impose a transition from traditional energy resources to energy sources open referred to as renewables, natural gas is the energy source that is best suited to integrate with the intermittency inherent in the use of wind and solar. Gas provides a reliable, affordable, and increasingly clean source of energy in both traditional and “carbon-constrained” applications.

Gas faces headwinds in the form of increasingly extreme net zero energy policies that will constrict supplies if implemented as proposed. Gas could also improve overall reliability if onsite storage was prioritized to help avoid supply disruptions that can occur in just-in-time pipeline deliveries during periods of extreme weather and demand.

MCPP-NWU Report Card

This blog has been saluting natural gas for years, most recently in this post. From an environmental standpoint, offshore natural gas production is particularly attractive, especially nonassociated gas-well gas.

Read Full Post »

Pictured: pig for cleaning gas pipelines. Will Nord Stream’s suit against the insurers unplug investigation findings?

Nord Stream AG has sued insurers Lloyds and Arch in the English High Court for failing to pay for pipeline damage incurred during the Sept. 2022 Baltic Sea explosions. The estimated pipeline repair costs range from €1.2 to €1.35 billion, and Nord Stream is seeking €400 million from the insurers.

Could this litigation help us learn more about the findings of the official Nord Stream investigations? After 17 months of investigation, Denmark recently concluded that “there are not sufficient grounds to pursue a criminal case in Denmark.” Only nineteen days before Sweden had announced that “Swedish jurisdiction does not apply and that the investigation therefore should be closed.” These weak announcements at the end of lengthy investigations seem too convenient, and may lend credence to Hersh’s Nord Stream account or a recent variation that implicates the UK. Germany is presumably still investigating, and it remains to be seen whether they will release findings.

Could the parties in the Nord Stream case pursue documents or testimony from the Swedish, Danish, or German investigation teams? Both sides in this case, Nord Stream AG and the insurers, would benefit from details that could help identify the responsible parties.

It’s more than a little hypocritical for Western governments and their NGO partners to rail against offshore oil and gas operations while quietly accepting (without investigation) the economic and environmental consequences of the Nord Stream sabotage. Compare the Nord Stream methane emissions with those associated with Gulf of Mexico operations.

Read Full Post »

Bayou Bend CCS LLC commenced drilling an offshore (Texas State waters) and an onshore stratigraphic well for carbon sequestration in the first quarter 2024.

Talos

Is offshore carbon disposal ocean dumping? One of the provisions that was slipped into the “2021 Infrastructure Bill” exempted carbon sequestration from the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (Ocean Dumping Act). This exemption revises the OCS Lands Act and thus does not apply to State offshore lands. The Texas offshore wells must therefore be permitted by EPA as “Class VI wells,” as is the case for onshore disposal wells. However, Texas and Louisiana have asked the EPA for “primacy,” which would allow state agencies to approve and oversee these operations.

Meanwhile, the regulations for carbon disposal on the OCS, which the Infrastructure Bill mandated by November 2022, have yet to be published for comment. The latest Federal regulatory agenda indicates a publication date of 12/00/2023 for these regulations. Presumably the staff work has been completed and the rule is stalled in the review process.

Despite the absence of a regulatory framework, BOEM has accepted sequestration bids at the last three oil and gas lease sales. These bids were evaluated as if the leases were being acquired for oil and gas exploration and production, even though the bidders’ intentions were widely known. Why was BOEM a willing participant in this charade, not just at one sale, but at three sales in succession?

Given that the perceived carbon disposal bonanza is dependent on mandates and subsidies, one has to wonder about the massive revenue projections for this industry and raise concerns about the associated public and private financial risks. What is the long term business plan for this industry? Who will be monitoring the offshore wells (in perpetuity)? How will the public be protected from financial assurance and leakage risks? We will see how the myriad of carbon sequestration issues are addressed in the proposed regulations.

Read Full Post »

Given the intermittency, space preemption, aesthetic, and wildlife issues associated with wind and solar power, more attention has been shifting to geothermal energy. Quaise’s plan to tap ultradeep heat resources has been on our radar for several years and has been attracting private funding and a bit of media buzz.

Quaise is exciting not only because of the unlimited energy potential, but because of the fascinating gyrotron technology that vaporizes hard rock and could enable wells to be drilled to depths of 20-30 km and temperatures of >1000° C. Nabors, a leading drilling contractor, is one of the Quaise investors, and will be involved with the test drilling.

Demonstrating the gyrotron technology in the field is a big step up from doing so in the lab. Those of us in the “peanut gallery” are awaiting more definitive information on the lab tests that have been conducted to date and the important field tests, which are scheduled for this year.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »