Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘decommissioning’ Category

Decommissioning of Platform Holly – an underwater oasis and “negative polluter”

Posted in California, decommissioning, rigs-to-reefs, tagged , , , , , , , , on January 28, 2026| Leave a Comment »

Platform Holly in the Santa Barbara Channel

John Smith informs us that the California State Lands Commission (CSLC) is moving forward with the environmental review for decommissioning Platform Holly. This would be the first platform decommissioning project offshore California since the 1996 Chevron 4-H project which involved the removal of Platforms Hope, Heidi, Hilda and Hazel in state waters.

John comments that the project description, which calls for removing the jacket, seep tents and pipelines, and partially removing the upper 5 feet of the 23-foot-high shell mounds, does not make much sense given the abundant fish and invertebrates that reside on or around the platform jacket. Cutting the jacket off 85 feet below the water line and converting the remaining structure to an artificial reef would make more sense and should have been designated the proposed project. 

The plan is to send the materials to the Ports of Long Beach, Los Angeles or Hueneme or possibly Ensenada, Mexico. The project involves complex logistics and is going to be a very long (3 years), ambitious and expensive project that will likely set a precedent for future platform decommissioning projects.

It’s noteworthy that Platform Holly’s oil and gas production effectively reduced natural seepage and methane emissions from shallow formations beneath the Channel. Holly was thus a “net negative” hydrocarbon polluter.

According to their agreement with the CSLC, Exxon is responsible for the decommissioning costs.

Scientific American: The steel “jackets” that support California’s offshore oil platforms are covered in millions of organisms and provide habitat for thousands of fishes. Joe Platko

Read Full Post »

John Smith comments on HR 5745 – Marine Fisheries Habitat Protection Act

Posted in decommissioning, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, rigs-to-reefs, tagged , , , on January 19, 2026| 1 Comment »

Juvenile rockfish seen on an oil platform off the coast of Santa Barbara. For the scientists who study them, preserving these accidental marine ecosystems has become a moral issue. Photograph: Scott Gietler

John Smith, decommissioning specialist and BOE contributor, has shared his comments (attached) on the Marine Fisheries Habitat Protection Act. This legislation would expand the successful reefing programs on the OCS by facilitating the conversion of retired production platforms into artificial reefs.

Comments HR 5745 JBSmith 011626Download

Read Full Post »

Stunning Hunterbrook report suggests the end is near for Sable Offshore

Posted in California, decommissioning, Offshore Energy - General, tagged , , , , , , on November 19, 2025| Leave a Comment »

Excerpts from a stunning Sable update issued by Hunterbrook Media LLC (“Hunterbrook“) on November 14, 2025:

  • SEC filing reveals Sable entered October about a month from potential bankruptcy. The company had $41.6 million as of September 30, with $39.7 million in average monthly burn in 3Q25.  
  • When Sable announced its $250 million financing on November 10 at $5.50 per share, the company likely had single digit millions in the bank based on its reported burn, against over $163 million in accounts payable and accrued liabilities. Sable does not generate any revenue.
  • Sable needs to raise significantly more money: According to leaked audio of Sable’s CEO briefing for select investors, the company will require $2.3 billion to achieve commercial production of oil and gas from its three platforms off the coast of Santa Barbara.
  • That includes at least $900 million to buy out Exxon, to which Sable must pay 15% interest on debt due by March 31, 2027. By then, the loan would be about $1.1 billion, accruing $200 million in added debt.
  • One of Sable’s only known assets other than the oil and gas project is a private plane the company purchased from its CEO, Jim Flores. The plane recently flew round-trip from Houston, where Flores lives, to Louisiana, in time for a football game at the CEO’s alma mater.

Comments from Santa Barbara County Supervisor Steve Lavagnino, an oil industry supporter, that explain his opposition to the transfer of Exxon’s pipeline permit to Sable:

“The final straw for me was a Hunterbrook article, which was as disturbing as anything I’ve read. I have many friends in the oil industry and I will continue to support efforts to access our natural resources, but it has to be done responsibly by operators who put safety above profits.”

Sable’s limited response to the Hunterbrook report includes information on decommissioning financial assurance:

  • Sable’s original SYU Purchase and Sales Agreement (PSA) with Exxon required Sable to post a $350 million decommissioning bond “150 days following the resumption of production from the wells.”
  • According to Sable, production resumed on May 15, 2025. The bond would have thus been required in October. (SYU production was halted by court order on June 6, so that “resumption date” may be irrelevant. Regardless, the Oct. financial assurance deadline is immaterial given the recent update to the PSA.)
  • The PSA update extended the date for posting the decommissioning bond to three business days following the new Exxon Loan Maturity Date of March 31, 2027 or 90 days after first sales of hydrocarbons, whichever comes first. (Note the change in language from “resumption of production” to “first sales.” Brief well test production does not trigger posting of the decommissioning bond.)
  • Under certain circumstances after the bonding is in place Exxon may seek an increase in the bonding amount to $500 million.

The decommissioning obligations are moot if Sable runs out of funds or is unable to resume SYU production prior to the 3/31/2027 PSA deadline. Exxon would remain fully responsible for SYU decommissioning.

Is it time for a public statement from Exxon on the SYU and Sable?

Read Full Post »

Interesting case: Delaware litigation on approval of the Coastal Construction Permit for the Maryland Offshore Wind Project

Posted in decommissioning, energy policy, Offshore Wind, Regulation, tagged , , , , , , on October 29, 2025| Leave a Comment »

The Dept. of the Interior is currently reconsidering approval of the Construction and Operations Plan for the Maryland Offshore Wind Project (US Wind).

Attached is a court filing challenging Delaware’s approval of the Coastal Construction Plan for that project. Some interesting points from the filing:

  • Maryland local governments declined to allow the transmission lines from the Maryland Offshore Wind Project to come ashore in their jurisdictions.
  • The Governor of Delaware agreed to allow the transmission lines to make landfall at the Delaware Seashore State Park.
  • The transmission pipelines would then traverse the adjacent Delaware Bays, to an inland substation, from which the power would be sent to Maryland.
  • US Wind applied for a number of permits from the Delaware Department of Natural Resources (DNREC) specific to horizontal directional drilling, laying cable pipelines, and other coastal construction activity.
  • The approval process, including provisions for public input, was not consistent with State regulations.
  • The Secretary’s decision to issue the beach construction permit is supported virtually exclusively by documents which were submitted by US Wind after the close of public comment.
  • Decommissioning and financial assurance information, a favorite BOE topic for both wind and oil/gas, was submitted after the close of the public record.
CRI US Wind Superior Ct Opening Brief Final version 5Download

Read Full Post »

Offshore wind energy, which is 82% foreign-owned, is the UK subsidy leader. Decommissioning risks rise with industry finances in peril.

Posted in decommissioning, Offshore Wind, UK, tagged , , , , , on October 21, 2025| 1 Comment »

JL Daeschler informs that UK offshore wind energy is 82% foreign-owned. Foreign companies are thus the primary beneficiaries of the UK’s generous renewable energy subsidies (chart below).

David Turner comments as follows in his informative piece on UK wind energy:

“We have been warning for some time that it is crazy for a developed economy to try and run its electricity generation system using technologies that are dependent on the weather. Even though there has been only a relatively modest decline in wind output this year, the operators and owners of wind farms are learning the hard way that it is very difficult to run a business that is at the mercy of the vagaries of the weather. Many of these companies are up to their eyeballs in debt. They better hope the wind blows hard this Autumn and Winter so they can collect higher subsidies, or they will be in real trouble.“

We have consistently raised concerns about decommissioning financial assurance for offshore wind facilities. Turner echoes those concerns noting that the wind industry’s “perilous finances are an even bigger reason to insist that proper funds are set aside to fund decommissioning or the long-suffering taxpayer will be on the hook for another hidden cost of renewables.“

Read Full Post »

NOAA EIS’s assess Gulf and Pacific aquaculture, but don’t consider the potential for synergy with existing platforms.

Posted in decommissioning, energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, rigs-to-reefs, tagged , , , , , , , , on September 30, 2025| Leave a Comment »

NOAA is touting marine aquaculture and has published Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements for Aquaculture Opportunity Areas (AOAs) in the Gulf of America and offshore Southern California. This is a positive step.

While the focus of these EIS documents is on distinct AOAs separated from oil and gas facilities, NOAA might also have discussed the potential for synergy with existing platforms. The reef effect of platforms can be sustained and new fishery ventures supported by converting older platforms to aquaculture facilities (Rigs-to-Roe/Redfish/Rockfish) rather than decommissioning them.

The ecological importance of offshore platforms has been well documented in both the Gulf and Santa Barbara Channel Channel area.

According to a paper published in 2014 by marine ecologist Dr. Jeremy Claisse of Cal Poly Pomona, the oil and gas platforms off the coast of California are the most productive marine habitats per unit area in the world. “Even the least productive platform was more productive than Chesapeake Bay or a coral reef in Moorea,” said Dr. Love. (Milt Love, UCSB biologist)

beneath Platform Gilda, Santa Barbara Channel

Read Full Post »

Revised decommissioning regulations are in the pipeline. Cause for concern?

Posted in decommissioning, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation, tagged , , , , , , , on September 24, 2025| 3 Comments »

Attached is the Dept. of the Interior’s Semiannual Regulatory Agenda (9/22/2025). BSEE and BOEM decommissioning rules are excerpted below.

Of particular concern is the revised BOEM regulation (107) that “would reduce the amount of supplemental financial assurance required from oil gas, and sulfur lessees operating on the OCS.” See our previous post on this regulatory action. Note that a proposed rule is expected to be published by year end.

  1. REVISIONS TO DECOMMISSIONING REQUIREMENTS ON THE OCS [1014–AA53]
    Legal Authority: Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1331 to 1356a
    Abstract: This proposed rule would address issues relating to (1) idle iron by adding a definition of this term to clarify that it applies to idle wells and structures on active leases; (2) abandonment in place of subsea infrastructure by adding regulations addressing when BSEE may approve decommissioning-in-place instead of removal of certain subsea equipment; and (3) other operational considerations.
    Timetable:
    NPRM ……………… 07/00/26
    NPRM Comment Period End: 10/00/26
  1. RISK MANAGEMENT AND FINANCIAL ASSURANCE FOR OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LEASE AND
    GRANT OBLIGATIONS [1010–AE26]
    Legal Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1331, OCS Lands Act; E.O. 14154, Unleashing American Energy
    Abstract: This proposed rule would rescind BOEM’s final rule ‘‘Risk Management and Financial Assurance for OCS Lease and Grant Obligations.’’ The proposed rule would revise the criteria for determining whether oil, gas, and sulfur lessees, right-of-use and easement grant holders, and pipeline right-of-way grant holders are required to provide financial assurance above the current minimum bonding levels to ensure compliance with their Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act obligations. This rule, if finalized, would reduce the amount of supplemental financial assurance required from oil gas, and sulfur lessees operating on the OCS and would support the goals of E.O. 14154; Timetable: NPRM ……………… 01/00/26
2025-18330Download

Read Full Post »

Judge Lamberth’s bench ruling on Revolution Wind is likely to stand

Posted in decommissioning, energy policy, Offshore Wind, tagged , , , , , , on September 23, 2025| Leave a Comment »

A long-time colleague is very familiar with Judge Lamberth, a Reagan appointee, and thinks highly of him. Orsted has a lease contract, and no matter where you stand on offshore wind, you have to have a compelling case to halt a project that is in the advanced stages of development. Judge Lamberth ruled that the govt doesn’t have such a case. Per the judge:

  • The govt presented insufficient evidence to support alleged permit noncompliance and national security concerns.
  • The govt acted in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner.
  • “If Revolution Wind cannot meet benchmark deadlines, the entire project could collapse.”
  • “There is no doubt in my mind of irreparable harm to the plaintiffs.”

Projects under development will be difficult to pause or stop. The Administration should focus on requiring sufficient decommissioning financial assurance, monitoring and mitigating project impacts, making incident data publicly available, issuing the report on the Vineyard Wind blade failure (finally!), and improving the availability of dispatchable power (i.e. natural gas and nuclear).

Read Full Post »

S&P downgrades Orsted’s credit rating. Will BOEM require supplemental financial assurance?

Posted in decommissioning, Offshore Wind, tagged , , , , on August 15, 2025| Leave a Comment »

Following the announced $9 billion rights offering to shore up its finances, Orsted’s long-term issuer credit rating has been downgraded to BBB- by S&P, just one step above junk.

Will BOEM now require decommissioning financial assurance pursuant to 30 CFR § 585.517(b)?

§ 585.517 How will BOEM determine the supplemental financial assurance associated with commercial leases?

(b) If your cumulative potential obligations and liabilities increase or decrease, we may adjust the amount of the supplemental financial assurance.

Read Full Post »

Ørsted’s troubles and Atlantic wind decommissioning

Posted in decommissioning, Offshore Wind, tagged , , , , , , , , on August 14, 2025| 1 Comment »

Ørsted’s stock price plummeted on Monday following the announcement of a $9.4 billion rights issue to fund the Sunrise Wind project. The share price has remained depressed (chart below).

Also, although Ørsted attributes its financial woes to the change in US policies, it’s apparent in the second chart (5 year trend) that the decline in Ørsted’s valuation has been ongoing since 2021.

In March, Fitch downgraded Ørsted’s rating to BBB from BBB+, and its subordinated rating to BB+ from BBB-. Further downgrades would seem to be a distinct possibility.

Meanwhile, decommissioning financing for the 3 Ørsted projects under construction in the US Atlantic is far from assured:

  • Revolution Wind: As they did for Vineyard Wind, BOEM approved Ørsted’s request to defer full decommissioning financial assurance until 15 years after the beginning of construction (see attached letter). This approval was prior to the Renewable Energy Modernization Rule (effective June 29, 2024), which eliminated the need for such waivers.
  • Sunrise Wind: Ørsted is now solely responsible for funding and constructing this project given the company’s failure to find investment partners. Presumably, decommissioning financial assurance was not required given BOEM’s latitude under the so-called “Modernization Rule.”
  • South Fork Wind: As is the case with Sunrise Wind, BOEM presumably allowed Ørsted to defer financial assurance for decommissioning as permitted by the “Modernization Rule.”

According to Ørsted, almost 70% of the turbines are installed at Revolution Wind and the first foundations have been installed at Sunrise Wind. South Fork Wind, 12 turbines and an offshore substation, is complete.

Given Ørsted’s strained finances, will BOEM now opt to require decommissioning assurance as provided for in 30 CFR § 585.517?

Ørsted’s situation is atypical in that the Danish government owns a majority (50.1%) stake in the company and Equinor, which is 2/3 Norwegian govt owned, holds a 9.8% stake. How will government ownership factor into BOEM decisions regarding decommissioning assurance? Note that Norwegian govt lobbying may have been one of the factors influencing the decision to allow the resumption of construction on Equinor’s Empire Wind project.

Meanwhile, two Danish opposition parties are calling for the state to relinquish its ownership stake in Ørsted.

REV_0486_Fin Assur Decom Departure Appr LtrDownload

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »