Sławomir Cenckiewicz, who leads Poland’s national security bureau and is a key adviser to President Karol Nawrocki, told the Financial Times in an interview that Germany should not continue the prosecutions if it wanted to align Russia policy with Poland and other Nato allies.
“From our point of view, this investigation doesn’t make sense, not only in terms of the interests of Poland but also the whole [Nato] alliance,” Cenckiewicz said, adding that prosecuting Nord Stream saboteurs might serve German justice, but also “Russian injustice.”
Whether or not the sabotage was justified, finding out who directed and executed the destruction of economically important energy infrastructure should have been a high priority for Sweden, Denmark, and Germany. Sweden and Denmark conveniently opted out after lengthy investigations, leaving only Germany to pursue what many believe to be a half-hearted inquiry.
The Snorre field is in 300-380m of water in the North Sea ~200 km west of Floro.
According to Reuters and others, Equinor will no longer pursue electrification of Snorre A and B, Heidrun, Aasgard B, and Kristin platforms, but still plans to proceed with projects at Grane and Balder fields.
A number of BOE posts since Jan. 2022 have questioned Norway’s electrification strategy for offshore platforms. Our reasons:
Most offshore platforms produce sufficient gas to support their power demands
Assuming gas that is not used to power a platform is marketed and consumed elsewhere, the net (global) reduction in CO2 emissions from electrifying offshore platforms is negligible. (Perhaps there is actually a small increase in net emissions given the power required to transport the gas to markets and the emissions associated with onshore power generation).
Offshore power demands are highly variable, especially when drilling operations are being conducted.
Gas turbines are reliable, and capable of responding to variable power demand. Excess generation capacity is typically provided.
Power from shore increases the cost of platform operations and could decrease ultimate recovery of oil and gas resources.
Per NPD, electrification of the shelf will increase electricity prices for onshore consumers and increase the need for onshore facility investment.
Gas turbines or diesel generators are still necessary to satisfy emergency power needs at the platforms.
Long power cables are vulnerable to damage (accidental or intentional), as are onshore power stations.
The reliability, cost, and cable vulnerability concerns have clearly been validated. The reality is that powering distant platforms from shore increases operating costs, safety risks, and onshore electricity prices with no net environmental benefit.
It also seems rather hypocritical for a major natural gas exporter to prevent offshore operators from powering their platforms with gas produced at their platforms.
As a result, on Sept. 29 Sable Offshore filed a declaratory judgement action against the State of California in Kern County. Sable is asking the court to confirm that the objectionable permitting provisions of SB 237 do not apply to their Las Flores Pipeline System.
Also, on Oct. 6 Sable filed a motion increasing the monetary damages in its ongoing case against the California Coastal Commission to $347 million. Sable asserts that their pipeline repair program was authorized by existing permits issued by the County of Santa Barbara under its Local Coastal Program and delegated Coastal Act authority.
These seem like good tactical moves on the part of Sable.
Unsurprisingly, the carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) hype is fading fast. No other carbon strategy is so strongly opposed by both climate change activists and skeptics.
Support for CCS seems to be limited to those seeking to profit from subsidies, mandates, and disposal fees. In 2022, Exxon projected a $4 trillion CCS market by 2050. Pipe dream?
“Highlights” of the Gulf of America OCS carbon disposal era:
amended the OCS Lands act to authorize “the injection of a carbon dioxide stream to sub-seabed geologic formations for the purpose of long-term carbon sequestration.”
exempted CO2 injection from the restrictions on ocean dumping by stipulating that such injection “shall not be considered to be material (as defined in section 3 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.” Without this exemption, CO2 streams would clearly be “material,” as defined in 33 U.S.C. 1402, and would be subject to the stringent requirements of that act.
directed that “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 deadline is long past, which is not uncommon for such legislative directives.)
11/17/2021: Not coincidentally, two days after the enactment of this legislation, Exxon was the sole bidder on 94 nearshore tracts with very limited oil and gas production potential. This was an oil and gas lease sale and there were no provisions for carbon sequestration leasing. Nonetheless, Exxon was awarded leases for all 94 tracts. As a result of litigation delaying the issuance of Sale 257 leases until Oct.1, 2022, those 5 year leases will expire in 2027.
3/29/23: Exxon bid at Sale 259 on 69 nearshore tracts with little oil and gas potential. Once again, this was strictly an oil and gas lease sale and Exxon’s CCS intentions were clear. Nonetheless, the leases were awarded.
6/25/2025: For the first time ever, the Federal government felt compelled to stipulate the obvious (proposed lease sale notice for OCS Sale 262) – that an Oil and Gas Lease Sale is only for oil and gas exploration and development.
Gulf of America lease map: 199 oil and gas leases were wrongfully acquired for carbon disposal purposes. At Sale 261, Repsol acquired 36 nearshore Texas tracts in the Mustang Island and Matagorda Island areas (red blocks at the western end of the map above). Exxon had acquired 163 nearshore Texas tracts (blue in map above) at Sales 257 (94) and 259 (69).
Even those of us who are supporters of responsible offshore oil and gas production find it a bit unsavory that some companies are looking to cash in on (and virtue signal about) carbon collection and disposal at the public’s expense. Perhaps companies that believe oil and gas consumption is harmful to society should be seeking to reduce production rather than engaging in enterprises intended to sustain it.
Congratulations to Dr. Ned Mamula on his confirmation as Director of the US Geological Survey. I had the pleasure of working with Ned when he was a young geologist in the Conservation Division (CD) of USGS. At the time, CD was the safety and environmental regulator for OCS oil and gas operations. Ned is a great guy and a dedicated geologist!
Ned’s statement at his confirmation hearing is attached. “Map Baby Map!”
Terrestrial Indonesian nickel mine site before and after miningBefore and after: terrestrial Chilean copper mine siteDeep-sea nodule field before and after collection by Impossible Metals
An Impossible Metals table (below) understandably favors their methods vs. those employed by deep-sea mining rival The Metals Company. However, both approaches are far preferable, environmentally and socially, to onshore metal mining.
Although President Trump rescinded Biden’s action via executive order on January 21, 2025, the court proceeded with the case, acknowledging the high likelihood of similar actions in the future.
Judge Cain concluded that Biden departed from historical executive practice and exceeded statutory limits under OCSLA Section 12(a), which allows the president to “withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the outer Continental Shelf,” but does not explicitly authorize permanent or irrevocable bans.
The judge emphasized that prior withdrawals were typically temporary or modifiable, and attempts to make them permanent encroached on congressional powers.
The ruling reinforces that OCSLA withdrawals must be revocable by future presidents, limiting executive power to bind successors on public lands disposition. The ruling should prevent future reliance on leasing bans.
Judge Cain’s decision is important because leasing bans should be carefully considered and should not be executed casually at the end of a term for purely political purposes.
Phil also believes SYU production would reduce natural seepage: “UCSB and State Lands Commission studies (Quigley, Luyendyk, Hornafius, Peltonen, and others) have shown that when oil production is active, reservoir pressure is reduced and natural seepage declines by up to 50%. That means: •Cleaner beaches (less tar and oil) •Cleaner ocean surface (fewer sheens) •Healthier marine life with reduced chronic stress“
Note that those studies are specific to Platform Holly and the Coal Oil Point area. To the best of my knowledge, no studies have associated SYU production with a reduction in natural seepage.
While Platform Holly may be a negative spillage facility (i.e. Holly’s seep reduction may significantly exceed the platform’s production spillage), this type of seepage reduction has not been demonstrated at other platforms. Decisions on offshore exploration and development should be driven by the economic, energy security, and environmental benefits. To the extent that production reduces natural seepage, all the better. However, seepage reduction is not a primary reason for producing offshore oil and gas.
Option 1 (use of existing onshore infrastructure) is preferable from cost, air emissions, spill risk, State and local revenue, and regional energy supply standpoints. This is the only option that makes sense despite the enormous permitting challenges.
Option 2 (floating processing facility and tankers) would literally be an “in your face” act of defiance given the coastal visibility of the offshore facilities. Supporters of this option should be aware that there was no Coastal Zone Management Act when Exxon produced from Platform Hondo (the only SYU platform at the time) to the Offshore Storage and Treatment (OS&T) vessel in the 1980s. An EIS would not favor this option, and the California Coastal Commission would surely rule that this option was inconsistent with their CZM plan. The Secretary of Commerce could overrule the Commission’s decision, but legal objections to the override would seem to have a good chance of success.
The only reasonable path forward is to do the right thing and continue to pursue the State pipeline/onshore approvals. Although these approvals are substantively warranted, more litigation is probably inevitable. It will be far better to defend a good project (option 1) than a contrived workaround (option 2).
Those of us who were involved with OCS oil and gas operations in the 1970s remember the heated battles between Exxon and Santa Barbara County that led to the installation of the infamous Offshore Storage & Treatment (OS&T) facility in Federal waters. This was the first floating production, storage, and offloading facility (FPSO) in US waters by 3 decades!
In light of Sable’s difficult (bordering on impossible) onshore permitting challenges, the company resurrected the OS&T option in a recent presentation to investors (pertinent slide pasted above). The extent to which this is purely a tactical maneuver remains to be seen, but this option would be very difficult to execute, even with a supportive Federal regulatory environment.
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.
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)
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 