Although combustion of natural gas emits 30% and 45% less CO2 than oil and coal respectively, the CO2 emissions are still significant. As a result, those who focus solely on greenhouse gases and ignore all other impacts (e.g. other air pollutants like NOx, SO2, and particulates, land use and space preemption, visual effects, and wildlife risks), want to limit the production and use of gas. However, whether or not fossil fuel consumption is significantly affecting the climate, the use for natural gas will be economically and environmentally imperative for the foreseeable future.
Not all natural gas production is equal from an environmental standpoint. Because this is an offshore energy blog, I draw your attention to the unique advantages of offshore gas production: minimal visual impact, bird friendly (rigs-to-roosts!), no risks to freshwater aquifers, and few land use issues.
Currently, most offshore gas production is in the form of oil-well gas (AKA associated or casing head gas). Offshore gas production is thus being primarily driven by oil demand, and is an added benefit from deepwater oil development.
Offshore gas-well or non-associated gas is largely the domain of independent operators producing in the shallower waters of the continental shelf. Non-associated gas has an added benefit in that there is little or no spill risk (depending on how dry the gas is). Shelf gas platforms also provide ecosystem benefits through their reef effect (rigs-to-reefs). Sustaining this non-associated gas production is therefore desirable from both energy and environmental standpoints.
Bidding at the February 2022 Atlantic (NY/NJ) wind saleseemed incomprehensible given the economic and political uncertainties associated with offshore wind development.The 6 leases garnered bids ranging from $285 million to an astounding $1.1 billion, with total high bids of $4.37 billion! The Administration’s victory message correctly boasted that this was the ânationâs highest grossing competitive energy lease sale in history.â
The intense bidding was driven by the lure of subsidies, guaranteed power sales, unprecedented Federal and State promotion, peak climate activism, inattention to mounting public opposition, and irrational expectations regarding the role of offshore wind in powering the regional economy.
The table below summarizes the sale results and the current status for the 6 leasesissued following the 2/2022 sale. One lease has been essentially terminated by the partners and the State. The other leases are in holding patterns in the planning phases.
high bidder
lease #
acres
bid ($millions)
status
Bluepoint Wind (EDP, ENGIE, Global Infrastructure Partners)
The first US commercial offshore project, Vineyard Wind, has proven to be a major step backward for the wind industry. After being granted questionable financial and quality assurance waivers to reduce costs and “allow Vineyard Wind to adhere to its construction schedule,” the July 2024 turbine blade failure and subsequent lightning strike have raised new questions about the technology, industry, and regulatory regime. The report on the blade failure, which should arguably be a precursor to the resumption of Atlantic wind development, has yet to be released.
The one shining light, relatively speaking, for Atlantic wind development, has been Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind. That large project is on track to be completed at the end of 2026. Although the cost has risen about nine per cent, to $10.7 billion, that increase is understandable given the higher than anticipated costs for upgrading the onshore network.
The Government Accountability Office report on Offshore Wind Energy (full report attached) does a good job of summarizing the potential impacts from offshore wind development. They are categorized in the report as follows:
Marine Life and Ecosystems (see table pasted below)
Fishing Industry and Fisheries Management
Economic Development and Community Impacts
Tribal Resources, Including Sacred Sites and Established Fishing Grounds
Defense and Radar Systems
Maritime Navigation and Safety
Unfortunately, GAO’s recommendations, which focus on consultation and staffing (perennial favorites), are rather meaningless. Does GAO really think more consultation will resolve the fundamental concerns of the tribes and fishing industry? Does GAO really think increasing BOEM/BSEE staff is a solution? Wind was the signature offshore energy program of the previous Administration, and it was well resourced.
When the legislation authorizing offshore wind energy development was drafted, we envisioned energy alternatives that could complement thermal energy sources like gas, coal, and nuclear plants. Natural gas plants are particularly important to intermittent energy sources, because their power can be readily dispatched on demand.
Never did we expect attempts to ban the dispatchable energy sources on which renewable energy goals were dependent. Policies that limit gas production, transportation, and consumption don’t boost offshore wind development, they doom it.
In a rush to achieve the Administration’s energy goals, the wind leasing program brushed aside important economic, safety, national security, and environmental issues. Coastal residents, tribes, fishing interests, power customers, and other affected parties have rebelled. Their concerns won’t be smoothed over by increasing consultation.
So now the wind program is in a dark and windless place (a regulatory dunkelflaute?). Five projects are under construction or in the early stages of operation. Construction has been authorized for 6 other projects. Five more projects are in various stages of permitting. What next?
Meanwhile, we still haven’t seen a report on the ugly and embarrassing Vineyard Wind blade failure offshore Nantucket last July. Shouldn’t that report be a precursor to further offshore wind development in the US Atlantic? Also of note, that same turbine was struck by lightning 2 months ago.
Should directed suspension orders be issued pending a complete review of the wind program? If so, for which leases and for how long? Suspension of projects still in the permitting phase would be relatively painless and maybe even attractive given the current state of the wind industry. However, financial impacts for projects in the construction phase would be significant. These important next-step decisions need to be made soon. Muddling along is not a strategy.
Construction and survey activities produce underwater noise that can disturb sensitive marine species. Offshore wind projects take measures to mitigate underwater noise, including the use of bubble curtains to dampen pile driving sound and pausing operations if protected species are sighted.
Changes to marine habitat
Installation of infrastructure, such as turbine foundations and transmission cables, introduces new structures and causes changes to the ocean floor that can alter marine habitat and affect the distribution, abundance, and composition of marine life in the area. These new structures can create artificial habitat that may benefit some species while displacing others and could affect bottom-dwelling species through disturbing the seabed. Artificial habitat effects of wind turbines are well documented, but research is ongoing to monitor and understand impacts on marine life.
Hydrodynamic effects
Operation of wind turbines can affect hydrodynamics and ocean processes such as currents and wind wakes, but little is known about regional effects of widescale deployment on ecosystems.
Vessel disturbance
Vessels can disturb some species and pose strike risks to large marine animals, but the increase in offshore wind vessels is projected to be small compared to the total volume of vessel traffic. Offshore wind vessels are required to take measures such as following speed restrictions and employing protected species observers.
Entanglement risk
Structures, such as mooring cables from floating wind turbines, could snag fishing gear and other marine debris and create entanglement risk to marine animals. Wind projects employ measures to minimize entanglement (e.g., mooring systems designed to detect entanglement), but there is uncertainty about the extent of the risk from floating turbines because of limited deployment.a
Collision risk to birds and bats
Turbine blades pose a collision risk to some sea birds, but little is known about offshore collision risk to bats. Research on collision risks and mitigation measures (e.g., lighting and curtailment) is ongoing.
“Of all commercial renewable generation technologies, offshore wind is the costliest, far more so than solar photovoltaics and onshore wind. The newest incarnation of offshore windâfloating turbines that can be sited in deep waterâare more expensive still. Although offshore wind is supposed to benefit from more prevalent ocean breezes, it remains, like land-based wind and solar power, an intermittent source of electricity. Hence, as offshore wind comprises a larger share of total electricity capacity, it requires ever more backup generation or storage to compensate.”
“Offshore windâs high cost and intermittency raise a simple question: Why have renewable energy advocates and policymakers in many Atlantic Coast states, as well as those on the West Coast, placed such emphasis on this technology? One justification, like all forms of renewable energy, is that offshore wind will reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Whether that is true remains an open, empirical question. Offshore windâs high costs, which require substantialâand increasingâtaxpayer and ratepayer subsidies, will raise electricity rates and reduce electricity consumption. Even offshore wind manufacturers such as German-based Siemens Energy admit this. By itself, reduced electricity consumption may reduce greenhouse gas emissions slightly, as will offshore wind replacing lower-cost natural-gas-fired generation. However, any such reductions will be so small as to have no measurable effect on climate.“
In a peer reviewed paper, AI (Grok-3) debunks the man-made climate crisis narrative.
Doug Burgum: Hydraulic fracturing technology is âone of the reasons why the U.S. shale revolution is a miracle. But that miracle keeps on getting better and better. Itâs the thing that has literally turned around the economy.â Posted here 15 years ago: Natural Gas Bonanza â Why Arenât We Celebrating?
âBased on the results, the AMOC is more stable than we thought,â co-author Linus Vogt said. âThis might mean that the AMOC isnât as close to a tipping point as previously suggested.â
Of course, the usual caveat about past performance not necessarily being predictive applies:
Co-author Nicholas Foukal: âThat doesnât say anything about its future, but it doesnât appear the anticipated changes have occurred yet.â
While a graduate student more than 50 years ago, I wrote a paper entitled âThe Use of Natural Gas in Improving Air Quality.â My professor, Dr. Richard Gordon (RIP), a terrific economist who greatly influenced my thinking about energy, liked the paper but thought I was too optimistic about the availability of gas.Â
The sense at the time was that natural gas was a premium energy source in short supply. I was blissfully ignorant and thought we geologists and petroleum engineers would find and produce the gas. The Shale Boom, for which I can take zero credit, has proven me correct, so I’m taking another victory lap. đ
Last week, the great Dan Yergin and his team at S&P Global issued a report that explains how economically and environmentally important natural gas has become. Key findings from the report are pasted below:
Higher US LNG exports lead to lower overall global emissions by displacing the more GHG intensive fuels that would replace them.
End use combustion is responsible for 57â87% of GHG intensity for coal, oil, gas and LNG, with supply chain methane emissions the key driver of variation between fuels (e.g., domestic vs. international LNG, domestic versus piped natural gas imports, or different crude oil streams).
Coal emits roughly 70% more greenhouse gases than the US LNG it would replace across all the alternatives analyzed.
US LNGâs unprecedented growth is enabled by an extended cross-state value chain, that reaches beyond the core-producing states â about 90% of every dollar spent remains within United States supply chains
Of the annual average of 495,000 US jobs supported through 2040, 37% will be in non-producing states. As many jobs will be supported in on-producing states as in Texas
Over the same period, LNG Exports will contribute $1.3 trillion in GDP, with $383 billion or 30% in non-producing states. On a per capita basis, producing states benefit from a cumulative $13.2K GDP per capita
The US Northeast (NE) has vast amounts of low-cost gas reserves in the Marcellus and Utica formations (New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio), sufficient to meet nationwide demand for ~17 years
Due to pipeline constraints these reserves are being developed at a suboptimal rate, pushing gas prices at Boston, Chicago and New York City Gates up 160% higher than the national gas market in peak months
Expanding NE pipeline capacity by 6.1 Bcf/d could reduce HH gas prices by $0.20/MMBtu and significantly lower prices across the region. Cumulative nationwide consumer savings could reach $76 billion through 2040
WSJ: “How many multibillion-dollar projects must go bust before a Governor comes to his senses? The answer is blowing in the wind, but New Jerseyâs Phil Murphy doesnât seem to be listening.”
Ouch!:Note how itâs always the developers that give up on these projects and never the state, despite the awful prospects for ratepayers. Gov. Murphy has treated renewable energy as a sacred cause no matter the costs since 2018. That includes a bill he signed to let Ărsted pocket federal credits it had promised to pass on to customers, though he clawed money back when the projects died.â
Thanks to the Colorado Oil & Gas Association’s tongue-in-cheek “Customer Appreciation Award,” which rivals the Not My Job Award as a means of recognizing extraordinary individual and organizational chutzpah, Chris Wright was on our radar long before he became Secretary of Energy.
He continues to impress:
BREAKING: Americaâs new Secretary of Energy just exposed the entire climate scam
âMedia & politicians NEVER bothered to actually learn about climate change.â
“For three decades you were labeled a crank, a âclimate denier,â someone who pigheadedly rejects âsettled science,â if you didnât embrace the belief that life on earth faces imminent extinction from âglobal warmingâ and, later, âclimate change.â The possibility that an entire academic discipline, climate science, could have gone badly amiss by groupthink and self-flattery wasnât thought possible. In many quarters this orthodoxy still reigns unquestioned.“
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 