The petitioners’ “sole argument” is rather compelling to this non-attorney. Given that multiple offshore wind projects are planned for Right whale habitat, how do you fulfill your endangered species responsibilities by only considering the first project (I.e. Vineyard Wind 1)?
(In light of Vineyard Wind’s performance to date, one could also argue that the Right whale is jeopardized by the Vineyard Wind project alone.)
Per a provision in the “Inflation Reduction Act,” no offshore wind leases may be issued after 12/20/2024, the one year anniversary of the last oil and gas lease sale (no. 261).
Although the 4 leases receiving bids at the most recent wind sale (10/29/2024, Gulf of Maine) have presumably been issued, BOEM’s lease table does not reflect that. If those leases have not been issued, it’s too late now.
Assuming that the Gulf of Maine leases have in fact already been issued, the legislative restriction on issuing new leases should not be an issue. A qualifying oil and gas lease sale will likely be held in the Gulf of Mexico in the first half of 2025.
The bigger question is whether the new administration will hold any wind lease sales. Pre-election energy policy comments imply that new wind sales are unlikely.
Addressing regulatory fragmentation will improve efficiency and lower costs for industry and government while reducing safety and environmental risks.
Unfortunately, the regulatory regime for US offshore oil and gas operations is noteworthy for redundancy, uncertainty, and complexity that divert industry and governmental attention from safety and environmental protection objectives to administrative processes, interpretations, and jurisdictional boundaries.
“Poster Child”for regulatory fragmentation?
The 12 Federal entities that have some OCS regulatory responsibilities are identified in the above chart. The organizations with core regulatory roles are included in the overlapping circles. The responsibilities of BOEM and BSEE are so inextricably intertwined that those bureaus occupy the same circle.
Coastal states also have OCS regulatory roles through authority granted in the Coastal Zone Management Act.
When multiple agencies have jurisdiction over a facility, system, or procedure, the redundancy inevitably results in inconsistency, ambiguity, and gaps in oversight. The focus of operating companies and contractors is diverted from safety and risk management to understanding and satisfying the regulators. The inevitable result is a compliance mentality that weakens the safety culture.
Interagency agreements in the form of MOUs and MOAs, which are ostensibly for the purpose of managing redundancy, are often unclear or inconclusive. They tend to be more for the benefit of the agencies than the regulated industry. The interests of the regulators and protecting turf are paramount.
Where legislation is not required (e.g. BOEM and BSEE), use executive orders to combine and streamline the regulatory functions.
Where agencies have separate legislative authority, establish a lead regulator by executive order pending corrective legislation. Under the EO, the agencies would function as a joint authority under the direction of the lead regulator.
A combined BOEM/BSEE would be the logical choice for leading the joint authority given that OCS energy is their sole focus and they are accountable for the success of OCS programs.
Use a management system regulatory approach that holistically considers all of the legislatively enacted regulatory objectives.
Increase the attention given to regulator and operator performance in terms of both outcomes and efficiency.
Reduce and simplify permitting requirements for operating companies that have demonstrated outstanding safety and environmental performance over a sustained period.
“At the heart of the dispute are rules from the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management – BOEM – which require energy producers in the Outer Continental Shelf to provide a bond to pay for well, platform, pipeline and facilities cleanup if the operating company fails to do so.”
“These insurance companies and their unreasonable demands for increased collateral pose an existential threat to independent operators like W&T.”
Comment: If insuring offshore decommissioning is so risk-free and lucrative, why aren’t other companies entering the market?
“Several states, including Texas, are challenging the BOEM rule and in one case they specifically cite W&T as an example of how the rule could be misused to irreparably harm energy producers.“
Comment:As previously posted, the concerned States should propose alternative solutions that would promote production while also protecting taxpayer interests. Arguing that decommissioning financial risks are not a problem is neither accurate nor a solution.
“In over 70 years of producer operations in the Gulf of Mexico, the federal government has never been forced to pay for any abandonment cleanup operations associated with well, platform facility, or pipeline operations.”
Comment: Shamefully, from the standpoints of both the offshore industry and the Federal government, that statement is no longer true. The taxpayer has now funded decommissioning operations in the Matagorda Island Area offshore Texas (BSEE photo below) and more significant decommissioning liabilities loom.
On average, solar produces full power 25% of the time, whereas wind does so 35% of the time.
Without fossil fuels, Texas would need to scale up its wind and solar capacity by 3.4x and energy storage by 42.4x just to meet the average hourly demand.
Despite these high values for renewables and 5 GW of firm nuclear power, the system only meets demand 76% of the time, equivalent to 176 days over the two-year period when generation and storage fall short.
Even with a 5x overbuild and corresponding 10x in storage capacity, only 88% of demand can be fully satisfied, not considering transmission challenges.
Just meeting the average demand, with a 3.4x capacity expansion, would require more than 50,000 km2 of land, equivalent to the size of Lake Michigan.
BusinessWire: “These turbines destroy our culturally sacred viewshed, destroy our traditional and historic fishing grounds, and threaten the continued existence of the North Atlantic right whale,” said William “Buddy” Vanderhoop, a member of the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head.
“We are known as ‘The People of the First Light,’” said Tribal Chairwoman Cheryl Andrews-Maltais. “The unobstructed eastern view of the ocean from our ancestral lands from Nantucket, Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard (‘Noepe’) and southeastern Massachusetts is inextricably intertwined with who we are as a people and our cosmology, and is essential to our spiritual beliefs and practices.”
Jens Christiansen offers this explanation for the absence of bids for wind leases offered in the recent Danish sale:
“The value of offshore wind energy in Denmark has declined.
The capture price remains consistently lower than the market price throughout 2024. When the wind blows, the market saturates and the capture price drops This is why the latest offshore wind tender yielded nothing.”
A related BOE post points to the sharp decline in bids for US offshore wind leases.
No bids for the 3 large North Sea tracts(yellow) west of Denmark.
Danish Energy Agency: “The deadline for bidding on the first 3 GW of Denmark’s 6 GW offshore wind tendering procedure expired on Thursday. The Danish Energy Agency has not received bids for any of the three offshore wind farms in the North Sea put out to tender. The Minister for Climate, Energy, and Utilities has asked The Danish Energy Agency to engage in dialogue with the market to identify why no bids have been submitted.“
Even Orsted, which is 50.1% Danish govt owned, failed to submit a bid. Perhaps the economic realities of offshore wind, as reflected in Orsted’s share price (below) are sinking in.
“NET ZERO – I want to be clear: I am not against advancement in energy technologies. Humanity should always develop and progress.
What I oppose is bankrupting the country by gambling taxpayers’ money on the emperor’s new clothes. Because that’s what these experimental technologies are currently. The misinformation being fed to the public is a disgrace.
Technologies like carbon capture, flywheels, and large-scale battery storage are being sold to us as the future and that we can lead the world! I don’t want to gamble with my tax thanks. The only thing we will lead the world in, is being the first country to bankrupt itself on the alter of Net zero and they haven’t even given us a choice!
These experimental technologies will cost not £ billions but £ TRILLIONS and provide little benefit to the average citizen, they simply benefit global corporations and those with vested interests.
The government should have focused on upgrading the national grid as a first step. At the very least it would enable us to use the renewable energy we are creating currently, rather than paying £ billions in subsidies for providers not to supply.
Instead, we’re rushing headlong into experimental technologies that are still in test phase. We are investing in these theoretical technologies before we can even observe their real world performance, evaluate value for money, or knowing if practically they will even work! And let’s face it, installations of both fly wheels and carbon capture machines have both failed financially or practically worldwide.
The hypocrisy around emissions and claims that these new technologies are “cleaner and greener” is an outrageous lie. Whether deliberate or misguided, this misinformation is unacceptable. The British public deserves open-book transparency on costs, timelines, and actual impacts. If the government cannot provide this, they must step aside and bring in independent teams—free from vested interests—to evaluate and advise. And then the British public should be offered a vote.
The ideological, socialist pipe dream of hitting a fictitious 2030 target will bankrupt the country. Worse, it will make us entirely dependent on banks and foreign entities that will dictate our policies for decades.
And we are doing all of this whilst we have at least 200 years of domestic energy resources in the ground, the ‘emergency’ propaganda is simply untrue. But instead of bringing energy prices down in order to enable growth, which in turn would generate GDP, which in turn frees up domestic funds to invest in research, we’re sacrificing our economic stability and sovereignty for technology that will be outdated before we’ve even finished building it!.. because technology works like that!
Some people are getting very rich, some people are gaining global attention and others are simply fools. It is unacceptable to me.“
