Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘energy policy’ Category

Observations and comments on the offshore findings and recommendations in the Dept. of the Interior’s report:

  • From an offshore perspective, this report is more moderate than expected. No major complaints.
  • The report was issued the Friday after Thanksgiving. Was there a desire to minimize attention?
  • The report does not include a recommendation on raising royalty rates. DOI will continue to study such actions (prudent decision).
  • BSEE estimates current liability for “orphaned infrastructure” at only $65 million. They must be using a very narrow definition of orphaned infrastructure.
  • “Financial assurance coverage should be strengthened.” (Few would argue with that statement.)
  • “BSEE and BOEM will carefully consider comments on the 2020 proposed financial assurance rule.” (Deja vu? Expect a long, slow process.)
  • BOEM will establish a “fitness to operate standard.” Comments: (1) This is an old concept that has proven to be difficult to execute. Hold companies accountable, make them demonstrate financial assurance, and don’t pander to bad actors (see the case of Hogan and Houchin) (2) Why is BOEM establishing this standard and not BSEE, the safety bureau? (The division of responsibilities between BOEM and BSEE has created serious overlap, inefficiency, and confusion and needs to be addressed.)
  • “BOEM should consider advancing alternatives to the practice of area-wide leasing.” Tract selection makes sense in frontier areas with little operational history. It would have been perfect for the Mid- or South Atlantic or the EGoM, all of which were cynically removed from future leasing consideration by the previous President just before the 2020 election. The Central and Western Gulf of Mexico is too mature for a return to tract selection; employing that approach after 40 years of area-wide leasing is likely to generate less revenue and production.

Read Full Post »

The text below, excerpted from the Infrastructure Bill (signed 2 days before Sale 257), requires the Federal government to provide funding for commercial CCS projects. $2.5 billion is appropriated. Given these incentives, how does BOEM possibly issue leases for CCS purposes when there was no public notice (as required by 30 CFR § 556.308) that CCS bids would be accepted at the oil and gas lease sale?

SEC. 40305. 
e) Large-scale Carbon Storage Commercialization Program.--
        ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a commercialization program under which the Secretary shall provide funding for the development of new or expanded commercial large-scale carbon sequestration projects and associated carbon dioxide transport infrastructure, including funding for the feasibility,site characterization, permitting, and construction stages of project development.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section $2,500,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2022 through 2026.

Read Full Post »

WASHINGTON, D.C.— At the direction of President Biden, U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm authorized that 50 million barrels of crude oil from the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) be made available. 

DOE

Not a fan of this decision. Using the SPR in an attempt to manipulate prices discourages the investment needed to ensure ample secure oil supplies in the future.

Will OPEC respond?

“The battle lines are being drawn,” said John Kilduff, founding partner at Again Capital LLC.  “Certainly, OPEC and the Saudis can win this in that they are holding all the cards. They can keep more oil off the market than a SPR release can put on the market. If you see WTI get under $70, then I would expect a response from OPEC+.”

World Oil

Read Full Post »

The plan was for SCS Energy’s PurGen One plant in Linden, NJ to burn coal to generate electricity and produce fertilizer. SCS proposed to inject 90% of the CO2 into subsurface reservoirs 70 miles offshore. The project faced strong opposition and was ultimately nixed by the State. The plan had been presented to the Federal offshore regulator (MMS), but the company was advised that there was no legal framework for disposing CO2 beneath the OCS.

Read Full Post »

  • One sale was for oil and gas leases. That sale was carefully planned and publicly announced in accordance with established BOEM regulations and procedures. Proposed and final notices of sale were published for public review. The final notice was published in the Federal Register on 10/4/2021. 32 companies participated in the sale.
  • The second sale was for CCS purposes. That sale was unannounced and had only one participant. That sale was facilitated by a provision in the Infrastructure bill that was signed just 2 days before the lease sale. There was no public notice.

Read Full Post »

  • Should CCS leases have been offered in a separate sale as is the case for salt, sulfur, and wind operations?
  • Was CCS activity considered in the environmental reviews for this sale?
  • Was CCS mentioned in the Notice of Sale?
  • How will these CCS bids be evaluated?
  • Will the CCS bidding influence the Judge’s decision on the pending Sale 257 litigation?

Read Full Post »

Excerpt from SEC. 40307. GEOLOGIC CARBON SEQUESTRATION ON THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF:
(b) Leases, Easements, or Rights-of-way for Energy and Related Purposes.--Section 8(p)(1) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(p)(1)) is amended--
        (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``or'' after the semicolon;
        (2) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; or''; and
        (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(E) provide for, support, or are directly related to the injection of a carbon dioxide stream to sub-seabed geologic formations for the purpose of long-term carbon sequestration.''.
    (c) Clarification.--A carbon dioxide stream injected for the purpose of carbon sequestration under subparagraph (E) of section 8(p)(1) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(p)(1))  shall not be considered to be material (as defined in section 3 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1402)) for purposes of that Act (33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.).
    (d) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall promulgate regulations to carry out the amendments made by this section.

This will be an interesting challenge for the DOI folks (BSEE/BOEM?) charged with writing the regulation given the jurisdictional issues related to capturing onshore CO2 and transporting it to the OCS. Also, when was this provision added to the infrastructure bill and did its apparent obscurity and delayed enactment give certain parties some type of competitive advantage at the sale?

Read Full Post »

Q    Can I just ask one more on oil and gas?  So, we just saw President Biden take action now in terms of the — protecting oil and gas development on Native lands and Tribal lands.  But later this week, the U.S. government will open up for auction many, many acres — an area larger than several states, actually — to oil and gas leasing because of this legal situation. 

So there are critics who say that you should have done more to avert this action.  And I wonder if you can just say, you know, what action could potentially be done.  Is there — are there any last-minute steps that could be taken to prevent those auctions from going forward?

MS. PSAKI:  Well, you know, the President did — as you know, Andrea, but just to get others up to speed — issue an executive order pausing oil and gas leasing on public lands and in offshore waters to facilitate the identification and implementation of long-needed permitting and leasing reforms. 

Shortly thereafter, the Interior Department cancelled the pending offshore oil and gas lease in the Gulf of Mexico known as Lease Sale 257. 

So, what you’re referring to, I believe, is the fact that, in June, a federal district court in Louisiana stopped the President’s leasing pause and ruled that the Interior Department is legally required to go through with the sale of the Lease Sale 257, which is what you’re refer- — what Andrea is referring to in terms of putting up a bunch of lease sales — oil and gas lease sales. 

We believe the decision is wrong, and the Justice Department is appealing it.  So it’s in the courts; it’s in a legal process.  We’re required to comply with the injunction.  It’s a legal case and legal process, but it’s important for advocates and other people out there who are following this to understand that it’s not aligned with our view, the President’s policies, or the executive order that he signed.

Go ahead.

Q    So there’s no more la- — so, you can’t take any last-minute action to prevent that from going forward?

MS. PSAKI:  I would point you to the Justice Department.  They, of course, are appealing this, and I would point you to them for any legal action or what their options are.

White House

Read Full Post »

Legal engineer | Feature | Law Gazette
Law Society Gazette

Read Full Post »

  • Chart 1: Gulf of Mexico rig count remains low
  • Chart 2: Exploratory drilling continues to decline and may be insufficient to replace reserves
  • Chart 3: Well starts and number of operators drilling remain at historic low levels
  • Chart 4: (1) One company (Shell) accounted for 39% of the 2021 YTD deepwater well starts in the GoM. (2) Five companies (Shell, Oxy/Anadarko, Chevron, Murphy, and BP) accounted for 80% of the deepwater well starts.

More certainty regarding lease sales would help. Prospective participants need assurances that they will have opportunities to apply findings and test exploration and development strategies. Will Lease Sale 257 be held on schedule next week?

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »