Posted in energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, tagged December 2024, Gulf of America, large increase, new deepwater platforms, oil production on February 28, 2025| Leave a Comment »
Actually, the latest data are for December 2024, so that was before the name change. It’s a nice story nonetheless, very patriotic.😉
Most likely, the jump in production is related to increased output from the new deepwater facilities we have been following.
Posted in energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, tagged Argos, beyond petroleum, bp, Gulf of America production, increase oil and gas investments on February 28, 2025| Leave a Comment »
BP has announced it will cut its renewable energy investments and instead focus on increasing oil and gas production.
The energy giant revealed the shift in strategy on Wednesday following pressure from some investors unhappy its profits and share price have been lower than its rivals.
BP said it would increase its investments in oil and gas by about 20% to $10bn (£7.9bn) a year, while decreasing previously planned funding for renewables by more than $5bn (£3.9bn).
It’s more than okay to be an oil and gas producer – no need to apologize or pretend to be something else. Oil and gas are, and will continue to be, essential to economies worldwide. Companies should focus on safely and cleanly achieving production objectives.
If a company thinks other types of energy investments make good business sense, they should engage in those activities. However, they should not do so to curry favor with anti-oil factions who can never be placated. Attempts to do so will only weaken your company.
BP is doing well in the Gulf of America – no. 2 producer in 2024.
Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, tagged Environmental Defense Center, Exxon, pipeline permits, Sable Offshore, Santa Barbara County, Santa Ynez Unit on February 27, 2025| Leave a Comment »
The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors tie vote on the transfer of permits from Exxon to Sable has both sides declaring victory! (And I thought I was the only one who was confused!)
Per Noozhawk:
“During Wednesday’s meeting of the county Planning Commission, Lisa Plowman, director of Planning & Development, expressed uncertainty about the future of the permits and said the split vote meant that the board took no action.
“We are in the process of (…) determining what that actually means in the long run for Sable and the opponents,” Plowman said.”
“The county has not in recent memory had a tie vote under this section. The county is looking into what happens next.”
Sables’ take: “Sable is pleased the appeals failed and the Planning Commission’s approval of the Santa Ynez Unit permit transfer to Sable stands. We look forward to continuing to work with the county to finalize the permit transfer and to safely restarting production as soon as possible.”
Environmental Defense Center’s take: “We applaud the Board of Supervisors’ decision to NOT transfer permits to Sable to operate a defective pipeline and dangerous processing facilities on our shores.”
Just when you thought this couldn’t get more complicated!😖😣
Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, tagged Exxon, Sable Offshore, Santa Barbara County, Santa Ynez Unit, transfer of ownership on February 25, 2025| Leave a Comment »
Per the Daily Compounder on X:
The Board voted 2-2 to uphold the approval of the transfer of permits from Exxon to Sable. The tie vote meant the appeal of the previous approval failed.
Interestingly, one of the Supervisors reportedly slammed the California Coastal Commission for being politically motivated and abusing the law.
Posted in energy policy, Wind Energy, tagged all of the above energy, Big Oil, China coal consumption, Denmark energy, Secretary Burgum, Washington Post, wind opposition on February 24, 2025| Leave a Comment »
Now that the favored wind industry is struggling, the Washington Post is conveniently endorsing an “all of the above” energy policy and urging Interior Secretary Burgum to “stand up for wind energy.” Where was this support for “all of the above” when offshore oil and gas leasing was halted, important pipeline approvals were being denied, States were banning hydraulic fracturing, nuclear plants were stalled, and coal workers were being told to “learn how to code?”
Additional comments on the Post’s opinion piece:
WP: “Opponents of wind power — many of them tied to the fossil fuel industry — have taken note and are furiously lobbying the government to block projects already under construction, as well.”
Comments:
WP: “China’s capacity for wind power is already three times that of the United States.”
Comment: Does this make China an environmental leader? Does the WP also support China’s world-leading and still growing coal consumption (see below)?
WP: “Denmark derives about 60 percent of its total energy from wind.”
Comment: Is the WP unconcerned about the intermittency of wind power, the dramatic fluctuations in capacity factors, and the need for alternate power sources, typically coal and natural gas? How do these wind capacity factors look (chart below)? Does the WP support other Danish climate policies like the tax on cow emissions?
Posted in energy policy, Uncategorized, tagged AfD, CDU, coalition, eastern Germany, energy policy, fracking, German elections, nuclear energy, renewable energy on February 23, 2025| Leave a Comment »
The nominally conservative CDU has vowed not to form a coalition with the “far-right” (actually conservative libertarian) AfD, and will thus have to join hands with the left-leaning SPD and Greens. This doesn’t bode well for the significant changes many believe are needed.
On the plus side for AfD supporters, the party’s growth in just 8 years has been most impressive:
AfD was dominant in the East which fears a return of the Marxism they experienced prior to the “Wende.”
AfD’s energy policy (p.77) seems pretty sensible given the supply and cost challenges facing Germany. A few highlights:
Posted in energy policy, Offshore Wind, tagged Atlantic wind, CFACT, incidental takes, letter to Burgum, withdraw wind permits on February 21, 2025| Leave a Comment »
Groups and individuals opposing Atlantic wind projects sent the attached letter to Interior Secretary Doug Bergum asking for the withdraw of wind permits.
The groups cite serious problems with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Letters of Authorization (LOA) for Incidental Take of endangered and threatened species. The LOAs authorized cumulative Takes of 548 individuals from a population of around 338.
The groups’ “no list” (project analysis deficiencies):
Posted in energy policy, Offshore Wind, tagged environmental impacts, Nantucket, Select Board displeasure, turbine lights, Vineyard Wind on February 20, 2025| Leave a Comment »
From the Nantucket Current on X.
We “feel misled” Nantucket Select Board member Dawn Hill Holdgate gives State Rep Thomas Moakley and State Sen. Julian Cyr an earful on Vineyard Wind.
“We as a board, and the community at large even more vehemently, really feel misled by the representations we were given back in 2020…”
“The visual simulations we were given were not accurate.”
“The promises on the lighting, they have been fully lit for quite a long time now. That never should have happened.”
“The safety and the environmental impacts on the sea life are just far greater than the information we were provided when we were offered a financial settlement based on just the visual impact on our historic landmark, which is far more impactful than the simulations we were shown.”
Blade replacement update: “They’ve removed four complete sets to date,” Nantucket Select Board chair Brooke Mohr said tonight. That would mean 12 of the 66 compromised blades Vineyard Wind is required to remove have been taken down.
Posted in California, decommissioning, energy policy, tagged California, Chevron, Chexit, divorce on February 19, 2025| Leave a Comment »
Remember that Chevron was once Standard Oil of California. The attached WSJ article discusses the ugly divorce after all these years.
Chevron tired of California’s attempts to dictate corporate strategy. Per Chevron CEO Mike Wirth:
“Putting bureaucrats in charge of centrally planning key segments of the economy hasn’t worked in other socialist states,” Wirth said in a Nov. 1 call with investors. “I doubt it will be any different in California.”
California wanted Chevron to commit to the State’s energy agenda:
“Chevron has a future in clean energy in California. They can join us in our steady, long-term transition to a state powered by clean energy,” said Daniel Villaseñor, a spokesman for the governor’s office.
California wanted the interests of shareholders to be subordinate to the State’s carbon goals:
Newsom said Wirth had invested far more in shareholder payouts than in developing low-carbon energy.
Other State actions that contributed to the divorce:
Not mentioned in the article are the costly challenges Chevron and others are experiencing in decommissioning offshore platforms.
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 