Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘energy policy’ Category

Still waiting for:

Read Full Post »

Here is the entire interview. The Nord Stream sabotage discussion begins just after the 1:11 mark.

Putin suggests that people consider who had an interest in sabotaging the pipelines and who had the capability. He also asks why Germany isn’t allowing gas to flow through the one Nord Stream line that wasn’t damaged. 

Read Full Post »

NAE announcement

As the Minerals Management Service’s liaison to the Marine Board of the National Academies and subsequently as a Marine Board member, I had the privilege of working with many outstanding engineers on matters related to offshore safety and environmental protection. Dr. Martha Grabowski was a clear standout because of her exceptional leadership and communications skills, modest ego, and willingness to assist.

Dr. Grabowski excels in analyzing and mitigating operational risks including those associated with human and organizational factors. As such, she was a great resource in our work on safety management and culture.

Congratulations to Dr. Grabowski!

Read Full Post »

A previous post commented on the bonding waiver for the Vineyard Wind project’s offshore facilities. According to this presentation by Cliff Carroll at the “Close to the Wind Summit” (Jan. 27 in Hyannis, MA), certain onshore bonding requirements are also being waived. Per Mr. Carroll, the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board has overruled the Town of Barnstable’s objections to bonding waivers for large transformer substations to be located withing the town.

Now there is no Federal bonding on decommissioning and now we have no bonding as a town.

Cliff Carroll

Mr. Carroll’s brief bonding comments begin at the 11:30 mark. Prior to that he considers some of the environmental risks associated with these substations.

Read Full Post »

At Oil and Gas Lease Sale 261, Repsol was the sole bidder 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 and 259. All 36 of the Repsol bids have now been accepted.

As previously posted here and here, carbon disposal bidding at the last 3 oil and gas lease sales has made a mockery of the leasing process and the regulations that guide it.

Hopefully, the carbon sequestration regulations that are under development will preclude conversion of leases acquired at Sales 257, 259, and 261. At a minimum, these regulations should require a competitive process for converting any oil and gas leases.

Read Full Post »

A friend owns land in the Texas Permian. His family gets a nice royalty check every month that has helped them get through some difficult times. Texas Permian production is almost entirely from private land, which is a big part of the success story. Payments to private land owners by responsible producers engender public support, access to resources, and growth in production. Add to that the continuous improvements in horizontal drilling, well stimulation and completion practices, and you have the success story that is the Texas Permian.

Similarly, private and state land plus technology launched the natural gas boom in my native state of Pennsylvania. When I was a student, we looked back at the Titusville/Colonel Drake glory days, and no one dreamed that the state would become a major natural gas exporter. Today, pipeline constraints, particularly in NJ and NY (which has managed to prevent access to the state’s substantial Marcellus and Utica shale resources) are preventing PA from further increasing gas sales.

The offshore lands on the US Outer Continental Shelf are a different story. Unfriendly, bordering on hostile, leasing policy (and not just during the current administration) has been partially overcome by advances in deepwater well and facility design that have lowered costs and increased productivity. However, OCS oil production is a fraction of what it could be.

OCS gas production has fallen dramatically since the turn of the century. Ultradeep (subsurface) gas production was not economically viable and production was fading even before onshore shale gas began to dominate US gas markets. Most of the current OCS gas production is associated with deepwater oil production.

The charts below tell the story.

Read Full Post »

In the wake of the decision to “pause” LNG export approvals, it’s important for us to also pause and reflect on the natural gas revolution.

Gas now accounts for 40% of our power generation.

The gas boom’s economic and environmental benefits are compelling. Greenhouse gas emissions currently get most of the attention. In that regard, methane (CH4) is a hydrogen transporter that emits far less CO2 than other fossil fuels when burned.

Less attention has been given to natural gas’s other important air quality advantages – low NOx. SO2, and particulate emissions. These emissions have greater local significance from a human health standpoint. Those who have ridden a bike behind a natural gas powered bus have no doubt experienced the natural gas advantage firsthand.

Other environmental considerations particularly favor offshore natural gas when compared to energy alternatives. These include low well and facility density, no groundwater pollution risk, and minimal risk to wildlife.

Compiled below are links to BOE posts on natural gas issues and advantages.

Read Full Post »

North Atlantic Right Whale

Key takeaways after reviewing the BOEM/NOAA strategy document:

NARW status (pages 7-14):

  • Roughly 237 NARWs have died since the population peaked at 481 in 2011, exceeding the potential biological removal (PBR) level on average by more than 40 times for the past 5 years (Pace III et al. 2021).
  • Human-caused mortality is so high that no adult NARW has been confirmed to have died from natural causes in several decades (Hayes et al. 2023).
  • Most NARWs have a low probability of surviving past 40 years even though the NARW can live up to a century.
  • There were no first-time mothers in 2022.
  • About 42% of the population is known to be in reduced health (Hamilton et al. 2021)
  • A NASEM study confirmed that offshore wind has the potential to alter local and regional hydrodynamics
  • “Effects to NARWs could result from stressors generated from a single project; there is potential for these effects to be compounded by exposure to multiple projects.” (p. 14)

BOEM/NOAA strategy:

  • No new mitigation is recommended pending further study.
  • “BOEM and NOAA Fisheries will work together alongside our partners (including the OSW industry) to further develop the information and science the agencies will use to inform their decisions to responsibly develop OSW while protecting and recovering NARWs.” (Comment: While regulator-industry collaboration is essential for effective offshore development, be it wind or oil and gas, regulators and operating companies have distinctly different missions and responsibilities and should not be viewed as partners.)
  • (p. 15): “As the OSW industry continues to grow and as projects begin construction, BOEM and NOAA Fisheries will continue to work with our partners to evaluate existing strategies and to further collect and apply newly available information to inform future decisions. This Strategy is an integral step to organize BOEM, NOAA Fisheries, and their partners around a shared vision and clear path to effectively study and manage this issue moving forward.” (???)
  • (p.17): BOEM will “attempt to avoid issuing new leases in areas that may impact potential high-value habitat and/or high use areas for important life history functions such as NARW foraging, migrating, mating, or calving. For areas that are leased, permitting activities should minimize any known or potential threat to NARWs and their habitats, and developers and BOEM should support research and monitoring.”

Questions:

Pictured below: density of NARWs near wind leases and hydrodynamic effects of turbines

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

Vineyard Wind project

BOEM is charged with protecting the public from financial risks associated with the decommissioning of offshore facilities. Previous posts have addressed oil and gas facility decommissioning issues and proposed revisions to BOEM’s financial assurance regulations for those operations.

Recent disclosures indicate that BOEM, which very publicly promotes the offshore wind projects that it regulates, has waived a fundamental financial assurance requirement at the request of Vineyard Wind (approval letter attached). Given its broad applicability, this precedential waiver could have the effect of revising a significant provision of the offshore wind decommissioning regulations without public review and comment.

The issue is the “pay as you build” financial assurance requirement at 30 CFR § 585.516, which was waived by BOEM. This requirement, which is intended to project the public from decommissioning liability, is fair and reasonable given that wind developers must only provide financial assurance “in accordance with the number of facilities installed or being installed.” Companies that don’t have sufficient financial strength to comply with this requirement should not be installing and operating offshore wind turbines.

Vineyard Wind was either unable or unwilling to comply with the requirement. They instead requested to defer providing the full amount of the required financial assurance until year 15 of actual operations. The waiver changes “provide assurance when you install” to provide assurance 15 years after installation if everything goes as planned (hoped?).

After their waiver request was denied in 2017, Vineyard Wind resubmitted the request in 2021 seeking a favorable decision from an administration concerned that project cancellation or delay might tarnish the program that they were enthusiastically promoting.

BOEM (as directed from above?) granted the waiver, citing the general departure authority at 30 CFR § 585.103. However, that authority is intended for special situations, not for broadly applicable waivers that have the effect of revising the regulations without the public review required by the Administrative Procedures Act and Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.

There are no criteria in the Vineyard Wind waiver approval that could not apply to other wind developers. Vineyard Wind has simply committed to the same “risk-reduction factors” that apply to all offshore wind projects: damage insurance, the “use of proven turbine technology,” and long-term power purchase agreements. How could BOEM deny the same request from other companies?

It’s noteworthy that the regulations specific to financial assurance at 30 CFR § 585.516 provide no criteria for waiving the assurance requirements; nor do the regulations provide for the 15-year payment plan approved by BOEM. Given the precedential nature of the BOEM action and its enormous financial implications, a revision to the decommissioning regulations that provides criteria for such payment schemes should be promulgating before any similar departures are approved.

In light of the waiver, the public will likely incur substantial costs if Vineyard Wind fails, walks away, doesn’t fully fund their decommissioning account in a timely manner, or seeks new concessions after some or all of the 62 turbines have been installed.

Given the decommissioning obligations, what company would want to step in and assume responsibility for a failing project 10-15 years from now? What happens if Vineyard Wind’s project revenues don’t meet expectations and contributions to their decommissioning account are insufficient or used improperly? More concessions? We’ve seen this dance before.

Whether the project is for oil, gas, or wind energy, protecting the public from decommissioning liabilities should always be prioritized over facilitating development.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »