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.
Scotland Against Spin (SAS) continues to provide an important public service by compiling wind turbine incident data from press reports and official releases. Their updated table includes 327 pages of incidents.
Oregon Live found out about the state of industry and government data on wind turbine incidents while investigating a turbine blade failure in Biglow Canyon, Oregon:
“Accident and safety data is hard to come by for the wind industry.”
“There is no national database of incidents. Owners don’t publicize them. Vendors are reluctant to discuss it. And reporting rules vary by state, or even by county.”
Thankfully, SAS diligently gathers publicly available reports and updates their tables in a timely manner. Their data indicate that the number of wind turbine incidents has risen sharply in recent years (see chart below). So, of course, has the number of turbines.
The World Wind Energy Assoc. reports an increase of ~60% in wind turbine capacity between 2019 and 2023. This capacity increase would only partially account for the recent tripling in annual incidents reported by SAS, and SAS believes their list is merely the “tip of the iceberg.”
A high priority for wind industry regulators in the US and internationally should be establishing a consistent wind energy incident reporting regime and making the data available to the public in a timely and organized manner.
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 $4.37 billion! The Administration’s victory message correctly boasted that this was the “nation’s highest grossing competitive energy lease sale in history.”
The intense bidding was driven by the lure of subsidies, guaranteed power sales, unprecedented Federal and State promotion, peak climate activism, inattention to mounting public opposition, and irrational expectations regarding the role of offshore wind in powering the regional economy.
The table below summarizes the sale results and the current status for the 6 leasesissued following the 2/2022 sale. One lease has been essentially terminated by the partners and the State. The other leases are in holding patterns in the planning phases.
high bidder
lease #
acres
bid ($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.
Notably, BOEM’s jurisdiction on the OCS has recently changed. A new planning area offshore Alaska—the High Arctic—is being established as the 27th OCS planning area. Additionally, boundaries of other existing planning areas are being updated to align with BOEM’s revised jurisdiction. Details on these changes will be included in a forthcoming Federal Register notice and posted to BOEM’s website.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is issuing this Director’s Order to Empire Offshore Wind LLC to halt all ongoing activities related to the Empire Wind Project on the outer continental shelf to allow time for it to address feedback it has received, including from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), about the environmental analyses for that project. BOEM received this and other feedback regarding Empire Wind as an outgrowth of the review that the Department is engaged in related to offshore wind projects. See the President’s Memorandum of January 20, 2025. 90 Fed. Reg. 8363 (January 29, 2025).
The Santa Barbara Independent doesn’t pull any punches in this article about the once invincible California Coastal Commission. I recommend that you read the entire article, but here are some choice excerpts (emphasis added):
Lastly, it’s totally unprecedented for members of the commission to verbally eviscerate energy planners with Santa Barbara County at a public hearing for refusing to provide them requested planning documents having to do with Sable no fewer than seven times. While the county has denied this charge, no one from the county showed up for last week’s meeting to explain their actions. One commissioner termed this absence a “dereliction of duty.”
What actions and outcomes ultimately emerge from this rancor remain far from obvious. That’s in part because the political support enjoyed by the Coastal Commission — long regarded as one of California’s many “third rails” of state politics — has never been so uncertain. By “uncertain,” I mean rarely has any state agency been so reviled by such a wide swath of political players and stakeholder groups.
The question has become not so much who hates the Coastal Commission — it’s who doesn’t. Donald Trump has hated the commission since it objected to a 70-foot flagpole Trump planted on a beachfront golf course he owned back before he became president.
Elon Musk, Trump’s alter ego, sued the Coastal Commission — and lost — over the commission’s outspoken refusal to grant him the “consistency determination” he needed to increase the number of SpaceX rocket launches from Vandenberg Space Force Base from 35 to 50. Although a federal judge would rule in the commission’s favor, Governor Gavin Newsom, a noted Democrat, announced he was siding with Musk on this one.
So, what happens if Sable doesn’t pay the fine? Or keeps on working despite three cease-and-desist orders? The key question — still loudly unanswered — is what Attorney General Rob Bonta will do. Will Bonta throw his considerable heft behind the commission? He hasn’t yet. And it’s been several months. Does the governor want to pick his battles with the Trump-Musk White House for causes that enjoy more broad public support?
According to a Financial Times report, the White House is drafting an executive order that will facilitate the stockpiling of critical metals found in the Pacific. The Administration is intent on countering China’s rare earth supply chains and battery mineral dominance.
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.
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 