The Polar Pioneer was once a good rig for sub-arctic operations, but is not at all similar to the modern drilling units that are used on the deepwater Gulf of Mexico leases that now account for 93% of OCS oil production and 76% of the natural gas. With the exception of the GoM shelf, which is laudably being gleaned by independent producers, the deepwater GoM blocks are all that is left of the once robust US offshore leasing program.
Unless the picture of the scrapped drilling rig is intended to be symbolic of the current state of the leasing program, the photo choice implies inattention to significant technical details. The document does not include a single picture of a deepwater drilling unit or production facility.
Tommy first served as Senior Advisor in the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE), a transition bureau in the wake of the blowout, and was later named Director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), one of the two new bureaus that were established to manage the offshore program. He subsequently served as DOI Chief of Staff, and was appointed Deputy Secretary in 2021.
Tommy was a strong leader and an energy moderate. He was highly regarded by the rank and file in BOEMRE and BOEM.
The press release announcing his departure is very professional with appropriate quotes from Secretary Haaland and Tommy. No reasons for his resignation are provided. However, given his balanced perspective on energy development, it would not be wildly speculative to suggest that he might have been a bit uncomfortable working in the policy bubble that produced documents like the latest offshore leasing plan.
BOEM’s five year plan presented one of the few recent opportunities to “vote” solely on the issue of offshore oil and gas leasing. Advocates facilitated the voting process by providing form letters for and against leasing. Both opponents and supporters are quite good at these campaigns, so neither side had a significant organizational advantage.
BOEM summarized (Table A-11 of the plan) the public comments, and I tabulated the 748,719 letters on the attached spreadsheet. The number of letters supporting oil and gas lease sales exceeded those opposed by 72,383 or 21.4%. The supporters campaign also had more breadth in that there were 49 separate campaigns vs. 45 for leasing opponents.
The NRDC demonstrated their organizational clout with the largest single campaign (107,355 letters). Denise Neal, a name that is unfamiliar to me, impressively organized the largest proponent campaign (61,122 letters).
Summary:
letters supporting offshore oil and gas leasing: 410,551
letters opposing offshore oil and gas leasing: 338,168
letter campaigns supporting leasing: 49
letter campaigns opposing leasing: 45
largest campaign: NRDC – 107,355 letters in opposition (32% of all such letters)
largest pro-leasing campaign: Denise Neal – 61,122 letters in support (15% of all letters in support)
reduce energy costs, farming costs, prices of gasoline and other goods
climate
jobs
environmental justice, local communities
energy independence
fisheries
intl competitiveness
marine environment
national security
marine mammals
GoM production is lower in carbon intensity, higher US environmental stds.
fossil fuel dependency, unnecessary to meet energy needs, oppose new fossil fuel investments, leasing “would not reduce gas prices”
domestic oil and gas preferable during transition
oil spill risks
help improve supply chain
air pollution
help address inflation
stockpiling ocean space, energy price gouging
Interesting contradiction: Opponents of Sale 257 argued in Federal Court that BOEM failed to consider the positive GHG effect that higher prices (the logical result of lower production) would have as a result of reduced demand. The judge agreed with that argument and vacated the sale. Some of the same groups have now commented (per the BOEM summary) that additional leasing “would not reduce gas prices.”
The current leasing policy as articulated in both the draft and final proposed program is to phase out oil and gas production:
The long-term nature of OCS oil and gas development, such that production on a lease may not begin for a decade or more after lease issuance and can continue for decades, makes consideration of net-zero pathways relevant to the Secretary’s determinations on how the National OCS Program best meets the Nation’s energy needs.
Basing leasing decisions on highly uncertain “net-zero pathways” would seem to be a considerable stretch of the Secretary’s authority under the OCS Lands Act. A strategic shutdown of the offshore oil and gas program, which would dramatically increase energy supply and security risks going forward, should be authorized by Congress. Even the threat of such a shutdown could have major economic implications.
The Proposed Final Program includes a maximum of three potential oil and gas lease sales – the fewest oil and gas lease sales in history – in the Gulf of Mexico Program Area scheduled in 2025, 2027 and 2029.
The plan looks good. It appears to be consistent with previous contingency plans. Offshore operations should not be impacted.
“During the shutdown BSEE will continue critical permitting, oversight, preparedness verification, and related activities that are necessary to protect workers and the environment from operations associated with conventional and renewable energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf. Approximately 40% of the 851 BSEE employees will be retained to accomplish these activities and will be designated as exempt, as their salaries will be funded from non-lapsing prior year carryover. Should an extended shutdown occur, exhausting current funding sources, all the exempt personnel would be designated as excepted as they are essential for life and safety.”
Federal funding lapses, real or threatened, are rather common. They range from false alarms to the extended shutdown of 35 days that occurred in 2018-19. In no case have offshore oil and gas operations been significantly affected. BSEE and its predecessors developed and implemented contingency plans that identified “essential employees” needed to monitor operations and review necessary permits.
Hopefully, DOI will provide clarity on these matters today, since a Federal government shutdown could begin at midnight tomorrow. Needless to say, any disruption in ongoing oil and gas production operations would have significant safety and economic implications.
How does a Coast Guard station casually post an endangered species observation on Facebook before confirming the accuracy of the sighting?
Even if the species identity had been confirmed, is a Facebook post an appropriate means of making such announcements?
Shouldn’t the observation have been reported to NOAA for any further action?
Was the Coast Guard station aware of Lease Sale 261 and the related Rice’s whale litigation?
Did the Coast Guard station understand the potential economic implications of the alleged sighting, not just for offshore oil and gas but for all commercial activities in the GoM?
Why did so many media outlets run with the Facebook post without confirmation from the Coast Guard or NOAA?
Why has only one organization, the Miami Herald, published the corrected information?
Why has there been no public statement from the Coast Guard?
Over the weekend, the Coast Guard station in Venice, LA rather recklessly announced the following on Facebook: “CRITICALLY ENDANGERED SPECIES SIGHTING: Station Venice presents to you……. Rice’s Whale.”The Facebook comment captioned a 16-second video of the whales swimming nearby, reportedly in the Mississippi Canyon area of the Gulf of Mexico. The video was removed on Tuesday. CBS reported on the Facebook post but was unable to obtain confirmation from the Coast Guard.
Given the timing and significance of the Coast Guard announcement relative to Lease Sale 261, this was a massive report. However, we now learn that the whales were incorrectly identified. Both the Coast Guard and NOAA are confirming that the whales were misidentified as Rice’s whales and were actually sperm whales.
CLARIFICATION: This story has been updated to reflect that Coast Guard officials identified the whales spotted in the Gulf of Mexico as sperm whales after previously identifying them as critically endangered Rice’s whales. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also told McClatchy News in a statement that they are sperm whales.
Assuming the Gulf of Mexico oil and gas lease sale proceeds tomorrow in accordance with Judge Cain’s order, some interesting questions and issues remain:
Will the lingering Rice’s whale issues affect bidding for deepwater leases? Friday’s court order is not a final resolution of those issues, either legally or administratively. While the Rice’s whale stipulation, at the direction of the Federal court, will not be included in the Sale 261 leases, BOEM’s Notice to Lessees and Operators (NTL) includes the same provisions and still stands pending further consultations with NOAA. Although the NTL is a “guidance document” (wink-wink), there are ways of making it stick through the exploration plan approval process. Even without binding requirements, companies might choose to fully comply to minimize legal risks.
When will the next GoM lease sale be held? Will the uncertainty spur or constrain bidding?
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 