“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 wind—floating turbines that can be sited in deep water—are 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 wind’s 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 wind’s high costs, which require substantial—and increasing—taxpayer 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.“
Yesterday, the California Coastal Commission voted 8-3 to fine Sable Offshore $18,022,500 for performing pipeline repairs necessary to minimize operating risks and comply with the FIre Marshall’s requirements.
“We have not gotten a foothold with Sable, and we’ve not gotten a foothold with Santa Barbara County either. So, we are where we are, and because of this absolute failure of communication and Sable’s, to be frank, absolute failure to follow the law, this hearing has become necessary,” Harmon said.
We’ll see how this gets sorted out in the courts. Sable appears to have a strong case against the Commission, but litigation in California courts is not exactly ideal for oil companies.
China National Offshore Oil Corp. (CNOOC) has surrendered its 21% interest in the Appomattox (Mississippi Canyon 391, 392, and 393) project and its 25% stake in Stampede (Green Canyon 468, 511, and 512). Those ownership positions were acquired in CNOOC’s takeover of Calgary-based Nexen in 2013.
Below are interesting pictures of Vineyard Wind’s repair and installation activity taken today by Nantucket pilot Doug Lindley. He commented that only of the turbines was spinning.
Also note the vessel transporting replacement blades.
It’s a bit difficult to rationalize all of this, but the Administration of Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey sees these projects as being critical to the Commonwealth’s energy future.
BOE contributor John Smith has shared (attached) his highlighted version of the 89 page California Coastal Commission staff report recommending imposition of a $15 million fine.
John finds it noteworthy that the report documents that Santa Barbara County did not concur with the CCC, and that the California State Lands Commission approved the span remediation work. John thinks this raises legitimate questions as to whether the CCC is overreaching in terms of asserting permitting authority for the repair and maintenance work.
John thinks it will be interesting to see how the Courts rule on this and expects an appeal regardless of the outcome. He points to the Court ruling against the CCC on Pismo Beach offroading case as being pertinent to the Sable-CCC dispute. (“Is the Friends of Oceano Dunes court victory a good omen for Sable?“)
In particular, note the text John has highlighted in green. These issues will likely be central to the Court deliberations.
The 2024 Gulf of America Safety Compliance Leaders are ranked below according to the number of incidents of non-compliance (INCs) per facility inspection. To be ranked, a company must:
operate at least 2 production platforms
have drilled at least 2 wells during the year
average <1 INC for every 3 facility inspections (0.33 INCs/facility inspection)
average <1 INC for every 10 inspections (0.1 INCs/inspection). Note that each facility inspection may include multiple types of inspections (e.g. production, pipeline, pollution, Coast Guard, site security, etc). In 2024, there were on average 3.4 inspections for every facility inspection.
District investigation reports are more timely and provide additional insights into safety performance. Impressively, Hess had no incidents warranting a District investigation, and was the only ranked operator with this distinction. I will comment more on the District reports in a future post
Chevron’s 2024 compliance record was among the best in the history of the US OCS oil and gas program. Was it the absolute best? Were it not for the FSI INC at a Unocal (Chevron) facility, one could unequivocally assert that it was. Further evaluation of that INC would be helpful. However, details on specific INCs are not publicly available, so the significance of that violation cannot be evaluated.
operator
W
CSI
FSI
total INCs
facility insp
INCs/ fac insp
insp
INCs/ insp
Chevron
1
0
1
2
117
0.02
311
0.006
BP
2
3
0
5
93
0.05
251
0.02
Anadarko
8
9
1
18
143
0.13
344
0.05
Hess
2
3
0
5
26
0.19
67
0.07
Walter
6
4
1
11
50
0.22
161
0.07
Shell
23
17
5
45
199
0.23
495
0.09
Cantium
24
8
0
32
123
0.26
537
0.06
Murphy
8
9
1
18
70
0.26
191
0.09
Arena
29
28
3
60
189
0.32
803
0.07
Gulf-wide
957
398
109
1464
3133
0.47
10664
0.14
Notes: Numbers are from published BSEE data; INC=incident of non-compliance; W=warning INC; CSI=component shut-in INC; FSI=facility shut-in INC; INCs/fac insp= INCs issued per facility inspection; each facility-inspection may include multiple types of inspections (e.g. production, pipeline, pollution, Coast Guard, site security, etc), in 2024, there were on average 3.4 inspections for every facility inspection
Not meeting the production facilities requirement to be ranked among the top performers, but nonetheless noteworthy, was the compliance record of BOE Exploration & Production (no relation to the BOE blog 😀). See their impressive inspection results below:
W
CSI
FSI
total INCs
facility insp
INCs/ fac insp
insp
INCs/ insp
BOE
1
1
0
2
21
0.1
48
0.04
Transparency on inspections and incidents is important for a program that is dependent on public confidence. For independent observers to better evaluate industry-wide and company-specific safety performance, publication of the following information should be considered:
quarterly updates of the incident tables, as was once common practice
posting of violation summaries for inspections resulting in the issuance of one or more INCs
In a peer reviewed paper, AI (Grok-3) debunks the man-made climate crisis narrative.
Doug Burgum: Hydraulic fracturing technology is “one of the reasons why the U.S. shale revolution is a miracle. But that miracle keeps on getting better and better. It’s the thing that has literally turned around the economy.” Posted here 15 years ago: Natural Gas Bonanza – Why Aren’t We Celebrating?
clockwise from the bottom left: Kim Coffman, Harold Syms, Gig Kocher, Bud, Bob LaBelle, Doug Siltor, Walter Johnson, Lennis Montague, Carol Hartgen, Judy Wilson, John Cushing, Kevin Spaner, Kelly Griggs. Not pictured: Norm Weaver and Jeri Bryant
Great people who were dedicated to the OCS program’s safety, environmental, and resource management missions! Much wisdom was shared! 😉
The announcement was during an interview this morning (4/4/2025) with Lawrence Jones on Fox News, and is consistent with expectations and the current 5 year leasing plan.
Sustaining or preferably increasing production rates will be dependent on a reliable schedule of lease offerings and a consistent regulatory regime based on best safety management principles and continuous improvement in technology, practices, and culture. Poorly considered operating restrictions imposed by activist judges are a major risk to both safety and production.
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 