The New England Fishermen’s Stewardship Association (NEFSA) is sending the attached letter to Maine Gov. Janet Mills along with a petition with over 2,500 signatures urging her to halt the development of offshore wind farms in the Gulf of Maine.
A Gulf of Maine wind lease sale is scheduled for Oct. 29.
199 oil and gas leases were wrongfully acquired at Sales 257, 259, and 261 with the intent of developing these leases for carbon disposal purposes. Repsol was the sole bidder at Sale 261 for 36 nearshore Texas tracts in the Mustang Island and Matagorda Island areas (red blocks at the western end of the map above). Exxon acquired 163 nearshore Texas tracts (blue in map above) at Sales 257 (94) and 259 (69).
Despite false starts by Exxon and Repsol (see above summary), no carbon sequestration (disposal) leases may be issued or developed until implementing regulations have been promulgated. In that regard, no news is good news for those who are less than enamored with CO2 disposal in the Gulf of Mexico.
The implementing regulations will be controversial. Most operating companies prioritize GoM production over GoM disposal. Most environmental organizations are strongly opposed to CO2 disposal schemes that sustain fossil fuel production and benefit fossil fuel producers. Taxpayers are leery of subsidizing these projects and absorbing increased costs for energy and consumer goods.
The Administration is, of course, well aware of this opposition and will not be publishing implementing regulations prior to the election. The next Administration, regardless of the election outcome, will no doubt take a hard look at these issues before proposing regulations.
The few oil and gas producers that are rather cynically hoping to cash in on CO2 disposal in the GoM will therefore have to wait, perhaps for a long time.
While the Orsted acquisition does not appear to have been directed by the Norwegian government, the State’s 2/3 ownership of the company no doubt influences renewable energy targets and broader corporate strategy.
The initial market reaction to the Orsted purchase was negative (see chart below). On a day when most oil companies’ share prices rose in response to the jump in oil prices, Equinor shares opened sharply lower.
As a boy, my grandfather owned a home “down the shore” on Long Beach Island (LBI). From the beach, all we saw were swimmers, surf fishers, porpoises, and an occasional vessel on the horizon. The offshore wind industrialization will change the island dramatically.
Attached is the release announcing Save LBI’s intent to sue. Their issues are summarized below:
Constructing and operating hundreds of wind turbines directly in a prime migration path for the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale.
Operational noise from the larger and noisier turbines Atlantic Shores plans to build.
Cumulative impact of the East Coast wind-turbine projects on the right whale’s migration.
Interference with other uses of the ocean including fishing and national security.
No plan or capability, technically or monetarily, to remove turbines and other facilities at the end of their useful life, upon their failure during normal operation, or in the aftermath of a hurricane or other extreme storm event.
Failure to account for structural failures such as the Vineyard Wind turbine blade incident, the damage from such failures to the ocean and beaches, and how that damage will be remediated.
Excessive electric bill increases under the State’s Offshore Wind Energy Development Act.
The Endangered Species Act issues are similar to those that the Nantucket group ACK for Whales is trying to elevate to the Supreme Court.
Perhaps not the best choice of graphic if you want to sell the project as being environmentally benign and compatible with other uses.
Some of us are long-time observers of North Sea operations. Others like JL Daeschler are pioneers who were involved with North Sea exploration and development from the outset. It’s sad to see what is happening to the UK offshore industry.
And for what purpose? Virtue signaling by politicians? Pandering to the international climate cartel? Shutting down North Sea production will have no measurable effect on our climate.
Now that the entire U.S. Atlantic and Pacific, and nearly all of offshore Alaska, are closed to oil and gas leasing, the goal of some is to shut down the Gulf of Mexico. That intent is clear in the 5 year leasing plan that provides for a maximum of 3 sales, the fewest of any 5 year plan in the history of the US offshore program. This is really a 5 year moratorium, not a 5 year leasing plan.
As noted in the post below, GoM production is 1.8 million bopd. BOEM’s reasonable forecast of >2 million bopd through 2027 will not be achieved because of policy decisions, not resource limitations or technical capabilities.
And shame on those who are attributing Hurricane Helene’s destruction to GHG emissions. This is uninformed opportunism at its worst.
This video shows the real cost of Ed Miliband’s plans to shut down the North Sea.
200,000 workers left stranded, billions in tax revenue lost, and clean energy investment deterred.
The Nantucket non-profit ACK for Whales (ACK is the FAA abbreviation for Nantucket Airport) has petitioned the Supreme Court to review the 1st Circuit’s ruling on the Vineyard Wind project. Per the Supreme Court filing (full document attached):
Despite the agencies’ explicit statutory duty to consider all “best information available,” regarding the impacts its actions might have on an endangered or threatened species and those habitats, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), did not consider the cumulative impacts of other planned projects when they authorized and issued permits to construct the Vineyard Wind 1 Project.
Will the Supreme Court accept the case?
“Hail Mary:” Per the Nantucket Current, the odds that the Supreme Court justices will accept the case are exceedingly slim. Of the 7,000 cases that the Supreme Court is asked to review each year, only 100 to 150 of them – about 2 percent – are accepted.
“Really good chance:” Per Val Oliver, ACK for Whales founding director, “In light of the recent Chevron decision, we think we have a really good chance. That was about government overreach and that is what this (Vineyard Wind) has felt like since the beginning: go, go, go, and we’ll figure it out as we go. That’s just not responsible.“
Regardless of the outcome of this case, there is a profound inconsistency in the administration of the Endangered Species Act as evidenced by our comparison of the operating restrictions for the Right whale (Atlantic wind) and Rice’s whale (Gulf of Mexico oil and gas). Note that the more onerous Rice’s whale restrictions were removed by court order.
Just when the media seemed to be settling on rogue Ukrainians in a rented yacht being responsible for the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines, comments by a Danish harbor master have muddied the waters.
On the second anniversary of the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage, the Danish publication Politiken posted comments from John Anker Nielsen, harbor master on Christiansø, the small Danish Island near the explosion sites.
“For the first few days, the harbor master said he was “not allowed to say a thing”. But today, John Anker Nielsen can reveal that four or five days before the Nord Stream blasts, he was out with the rescue service on Christiansø because there were some ships with switched-off radios. They turned out to be American naval vessels, and when the rescue service approached, they were told by Naval Command to turn back.Therefore, the harbor master has some faith in the theory that American star journalist Seymour Hersh, among others, has put forward without any documentation: that the US was behind the sabotage. The Americans have these small unmanned submarines that can solve any task, John Anker Nielsen has been told.”
Erik commented further:
The harbor master isn’t making this up. He wasn’t alone on the rescue vessel ordered to stay clear of the American warships.
“I am disappointed that BOEM’s accelerated process over the last year has further divided stakeholder communities, and put the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians in the position of challenging BOEM in federal district court. Oregon’s legislative Coastal Caucus is likewise now in full opposition to BOEM’s proposed lease.“
Despite the usual hype about the number of homes that could be powered and “good-paying jobs,” the upcoming Oregon wind lease appears to be very much in doubt. If legal action by Oregon tribes doesn’t halt or delay the sale, the absence of bidders may.
OregonLive reports that only one company, NewSun Energy, continues to be interested in participating in the sale. NewSun is primarily a solar energy developer with no apparent offshore wind experience.
2024 will be the first year since 1958 without a single OCS oil and gas lease sale. There would not have been a sale in 2023 either were it not for a legislative mandate. The only 2022 lease sale was a micro-sale in the Cook Inlet that resulted in only a single bid. So, at the end of 2024 three years will have elapsed with only one meaningful sale, and that sale was mandated by Congress.
The current plan is for these de facto sanctions on US offshore production to continue. The Dept. of the Interior’s 5 year leasing plan includes a maximum of 3 sales, by far the fewest sales in any 5 year plan in OCS program history.
Meanwhile, the sanctions on Venezuelan production were further eased with the understanding that the Maduro regime would hold fair elections. To the surprise of no one, the evidence strongly suggests that those elections were not fair. Nonetheless, the sanctions on production have not been reimposed.
Apparently, the climate activists who have imposed their will on the OCS oil and gas program have less influence over our policy toward Venezuela. Or perhaps the production (and consumption) of Venezuelan oil is cleaner and greener (🙃 sarcasm intended!)
“The Tribe has consistently urged that BOEM delay moving forward with wind energy development until a better understanding is made of the impacts to fish, wildlife, the marine environment, and cultural resources important to the Tribe,” said Tribal Council Chair Brad Kneaper. “No one, including BOEM has an understanding on how wind development will impact the fragile marine environment. BOEM developed an environmental assessment document that narrowly focused on the impacts of the lease sale and completely turned a blind eye to the inevitable impacts that construction and operation of these private energy facilities will have on Coastal resources, the Tribe, and other residents.”
“The timeframe for wind development appears to be driven by politics, rather than what is best for Coastal residents and the environmental,” said Chair Kneaper.
BOEM’s front-loaded 5 year wind leasing plan (graphic below) may have been influenced by (1) the possibility that the upcoming elections could affect offshore wind policy, and (2) the legislative prohibition on issuing wind leases after 12/20/2024 unless an oil and gas lease sale is held prior to that date.
Given that the next oil and gas lease sale will be in 2025 or later, BOEM was perhaps motivated to hold wind sales prior to the 12/20/2024 deadline (with a bit of a buffer to issue the lease documents). Indeed, the wind leasing plan proposed 4 sales between August and October of 2024 and only a single 2025 sale. That 2025 wind sale is in the Gulf of Mexico, where industry interest in wind leases is, at best, tepid.