Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘natural gas’ Category

“Natural gas and LNG are fast becoming the gravitational center of the global energy system, but some energy experts said the world is only beginning to grasp the scale of what’s to come.” ~Natural Gas Intelligence

Demand and high well producibility are stimulating exploration in the high pressure, high temperature Western Haynesville (Texas) and other ultradeep onshore gas prospects. Is it time to revisit ultradeep gas on the Gulf of America shelf? See the above targets map from 2004.

20 years ago Newfield, Exxon, and McMoRan drilled pioneering ultradeep wells targeting gas-prone reservoirs below salt welds in Miocene and older formations (diagrams below). The water depths were <100 feet but well depths exceeding 30,000 feet, and high temperatures and pressures, pushed the limits of drilling technology at the time. Noteworthy wells:

  • Blackbeard West (Exxon): Spudded in early 2005 in 70 feet of water in South Timbalier Block 168. The target was gas in Miocene sands at 27,000-32,000 feet total depth. Drilling reached 30,067 feet by 2006, but was prudently suspended due to extreme pressures, temperatures (up to 600°F), and technical challenges with equipment.
  • Blackbeard West, part 2: In 2008, McMoRan re-entered the well with upgraded equipment and drilled to a record 32,997 feet below the mudline. They encountered hydrocarbon shows in multiple zones, including potential gas pay in Middle and Deep Miocene sands below 30,000 feet, validating the ultradeep concept.
  • Followup McMorRan wells:
    • Blackbeard East (2010-2011): Drilled to 33,400 feet in South Timbalier Block 144, logged potential hydrocarbons in Sparta and Vicksburg sands.
    • Davy Jones (2009-2010): South Marsh Island Block 230 in 20 feet of water; reached 29,122 feet; discovered gas in Wilcox sands, but faced flow-testing challenges.
    • Lafitte (2011): Eugene Island Block 223, found additional pay in ultradeep Miocene zones. These wells targeted gas reservoirs but encountered operational hurdles.

This program pioneered ultradeep drilling on the shelf, influencing later deepwater successes. Over the past 10 years, the deepwater industry has successfully demonstrated high pressure high temperature (HPHT) technology which could facilitate ultradeep exploration on the shelf.

Also, note that a company targeting hydrocarbons below 25,000 feet (true vertical depth subsurface) may earn an additional 3 years on their lease. (See the Notice for next week’s lease sale.) Will improved technology and demand expectations finally open the ultradeep gas frontier?

Read Full Post »

Both are (or in the case of Iraq will soon be) LNG importers.

Excellerate Hull 3407, the company’s newest floating storage and regasification unit (FSRU), will be delivered to Iraq in 2026.

Why would a major oil and gas producer like Iraq be dependent on LNG imports?

  • Pipeline infrastructure limitations
  • High flaring rates: Iraq flared 625 bcf in 2023 which is almost equal to their total gas consumption (682 bcf). Iraq plans to eliminate routine flaring by 2028 (delayed from earlier targets).
  • Risks associated with gas imports from Iran.

And the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? Why would a state in the world’s no.1 gas producing country and not far removed from the massive Marcellus Shale reserves be importing LNG?

  • Firstly, Massachusetts is a wonderful place in many ways: beaches, mountains, islands, history, arts and culture, universities, charming villages, commercial fishing, recreational and professional sports, and more. I thoroughly enjoyed living on Cape Cod and was blessed to meet my wife there.
  • Unfortunately, Massachusetts energy policies have been misguided in recent years, in part because of unrealistic expectations regarding renewable energy, most notably offshore wind. Except for California and Hawaii, MA has the nation’s highest residential electric prices (Aug. 2025 data), 74% above the US average.
  • Pipeline restrictions have limited the flow of gas from Pennsylvania (Marcellus) and elsewhere.
  • Massachusetts is the only state with significant LNG imports.
  • Per EIA data, Massachusetts imported 13.2 bcf of LNG in 2023, accounting for about 87% of total U.S. LNG imports that year.
  • Most imports are through the Everett Marine Terminal near Boston. Imports through the offshore Northeast Gateway LNG terminal have been limited in recent years. (See map below).
  • Imports are seasonal, peaking in winter months, with most supply originating from Trinidad.
  • Recently, Governor Healy has made more encouraging statements regarding natural gas policy. She says she never stopped gas pipelines from entering the state and calls natural gas an “essential energy source.”
  • Perhaps the net-zero flip-flop my Bill Gates and other tech leaders is contagious.

Read Full Post »

… and we were planning for LNG import facilities in the Gulf? It wasn’t that long ago. US LNG exports didn’t begin until 2015.

Technological advances, most notably horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, and private initiative on private land flipped the switch entirely.

Now: The United States is the largest LNG exporter in the world with 15.4 Bcf/d of capacity, and total North America’s LNG export capacity could more than double by 2029.

Read Full Post »

Per the Financial Times:

Sławomir Cenckiewicz, who leads Poland’s national security bureau and is a key adviser to President Karol Nawrocki, told the Financial Times in an interview that Germany should not continue the prosecutions if it wanted to align Russia policy with Poland and other Nato allies.

“From our point of view, this investigation doesn’t make sense, not only in terms of the interests of Poland but also the whole [Nato] alliance,” Cenckiewicz said, adding that prosecuting Nord Stream saboteurs might serve German justice, but also “Russian injustice.”

Whether or not the sabotage was justified, finding out who directed and executed the destruction of economically important energy infrastructure should have been a high priority for Sweden, Denmark, and Germany. Sweden and Denmark conveniently opted out after lengthy investigations, leaving only Germany to pursue what many believe to be a half-hearted inquiry.

Meanwhile, the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party, which has gained considerable strength in the polls, supports a Nord Stream restart.

Why would Germany oppose Nord Stream 2 gas flow as part of a Ukraine peace agreement?

Nord Stream “whodunit” summary

Read Full Post »

EIA: Per capita CO2 emissions from primary energy consumption decreased in every state from 2005 to 2023, according to recently released data in our State Energy Data SystemTotal energy-related CO2 emissions in the United States fell 20% over that time, and the population grew by 14%, leading to a 30% decrease in per capita CO2 emissions.

Read Full Post »

Two of Israel’s three offshore gas fields are shut-in as a precaution. As a result, exports to Egypt and Jordan has been curtailed. The Tamar field continues to supply Israel’s gas needs.

Summary table:

field
(operator)
2024 production
(billion cubic meters)
(% of Israel’s total)
status
Leviathan
(Chevron)
11.33
45%
shut-in
Tamar
(Energean)
10.09
37%
producing
Karish
(Chevron)
5.96
18%
shut-in

Read Full Post »

Attached is the full NTSB report. Here’s what happened:

  • In May 2024, the Baylor J. Tregre tugboat was towing a platform on the barge MARMAC 27 to Brazos Block 538 in the Gulf of America.
  • The tug capsized in stormy conditions.
  • The 4 crew members were rescued by the Coast Guard.
  • The NTSB determined that the probable cause of the capsizing was “the mate’s inability to maneuver the tow into the wind due to the overwhelming towline force generated by the towed barge during the sudden onset of severe weather, resulting in unrecoverable heeling.”

Comments:

  • Who knew? When a tugboat capsizes while towing a platform on a barge, endangering the crew, that’s a very serious incident. Yet there was no public announcement by the companies involved or the Coast Guard, and there was no media coverage following the incident (May 2024). The NTSB docket includes only the final investigation report.
  • The NTSB report says a production platform was being towed, but it was actually a gas transmission platform owned by Transco Gas Pipe Line Co. There is no production in Brazos Area Block 538, an unleased block.
  • Here and here are bits of information on the Transco’s Brazos Area 538 Platform modification project.
  • Per a 2007 article, Williams’ Seahawk gathering system, which collects deepwater gas production, connects at Brazos Block 538 with a pipeline that transports gas to the Transco processing plant in Markham, TX (see map below).
  • The NTSB report lacks context needed to understand the planning process, organizational factors, and timing/urgency of the project.
  • The NTSB report attributes the failure to the mate’s inability to respond to the weather conditions, but provides no information on the safety management system, risk assessment, job safety job planning process, crew training, and other project management factors.
  • Two of the crew members are suing Trinity Tugs alleging that they suffered personal injuries resulting from the negligence of Trinity and the unseaworthiness of the M/V BAYLOR J. TREGRE.
Deepwater gas gathering system connects with Brazos 538 transmission platform at the “Y” in the center of the screen.

Read Full Post »

All rankings are suspect, especially those I agree with 😉. The full scoreboard report is attached, so you can judge for yourself.

I was an early advocate for the use of natural gas in improving urban air quality. (I still have the ancient graduate school paper! 😀). This blog has repeatedly saluted natural gas and its compelling economic and environmental benefits.

Although combustion of natural gas emits 30% and 45% less CO2 than oil and coal respectively, the CO2 emissions are still significant. As a result, those who focus solely on greenhouse gases and ignore all other impacts (e.g. other air pollutants like NOx, SO2, and particulates, land use and space preemption, visual effects, and wildlife risks), want to limit the production and use of gas. However, whether or not fossil fuel consumption is significantly affecting the climate, the use for natural gas will be economically and environmentally imperative for the foreseeable future.

Not all natural gas production is equal from an environmental standpoint. Because this is an offshore energy blog, I draw your attention to the unique advantages of offshore gas production: minimal visual impact, bird friendly (rigs-to-roosts!), no risks to freshwater aquifers, and few land use issues.

Currently, most offshore gas production is in the form of oil-well gas (AKA associated or casing head gas). Offshore gas production is thus being primarily driven by oil demand, and is an added benefit from deepwater oil development.

Offshore gas-well or non-associated gas is largely the domain of independent operators producing in the shallower waters of the continental shelf. Non-associated gas has an added benefit in that there is little or no spill risk (depending on how dry the gas is). Shelf gas platforms also provide ecosystem benefits through their reef effect (rigs-to-reefs). Sustaining this non-associated gas production is therefore desirable from both energy and environmental standpoints.

Read Full Post »

The Government Accountability Office report on Offshore Wind Energy (full report attached) does a good job of summarizing the potential impacts from offshore wind development. They are categorized in the report as follows:

  • Marine Life and Ecosystems (see table pasted below)
  • Fishing Industry and Fisheries Management
  • Economic Development and Community Impacts
  • Tribal Resources, Including Sacred Sites and Established Fishing Grounds
  • Defense and Radar Systems
  • Maritime Navigation and Safety

Unfortunately, GAO’s recommendations, which focus on consultation and staffing (perennial favorites), are rather meaningless. Does GAO really think more consultation will resolve the fundamental concerns of the tribes and fishing industry? Does GAO really think increasing BOEM/BSEE staff is a solution? Wind was the signature offshore energy program of the previous Administration, and it was well resourced.

When the legislation authorizing offshore wind energy development was drafted, we envisioned energy alternatives that could complement thermal energy sources like gas, coal, and nuclear plants. Natural gas plants are particularly important to intermittent energy sources, because their power can be readily dispatched on demand.

Never did we expect attempts to ban the dispatchable energy sources on which renewable energy goals were dependent. Policies that limit gas production, transportation, and consumption don’t boost offshore wind development, they doom it.

In a rush to achieve the Administration’s energy goals, the wind leasing program brushed aside important economic, safety, national security, and environmental issues. Coastal residents, tribes, fishing interests, power customers, and other affected parties have rebelled. Their concerns won’t be smoothed over by increasing consultation.

So now the wind program is in a dark and windless place (a regulatory dunkelflaute?). Five projects are under construction or in the early stages of operation. Construction has been authorized for 6 other projects. Five more projects are in various stages of permitting. What next?

Meanwhile, we still haven’t seen a report on the ugly and embarrassing Vineyard Wind blade failure offshore Nantucket last July. Shouldn’t that report be a precursor to further offshore wind development in the US Atlantic? Also of note, that same turbine was struck by lightning 2 months ago.

Should directed suspension orders be issued pending a complete review of the wind program? If so, for which leases and for how long? Suspension of projects still in the permitting phase would be relatively painless and maybe even attractive given the current state of the wind industry. However, financial impacts for projects in the construction phase would be significant. These important next-step decisions need to be made soon. Muddling along is not a strategy.

Table 2: Examples of Potential Impacts of Offshore Wind Development to Marine Life and Ecosystems

ImpactDescription
Acoustic disturbanceConstruction and survey activities produce underwater noise that can disturb sensitive marine species. Offshore wind projects take measures to mitigate underwater noise, including the use of bubble curtains to dampen pile driving sound and pausing operations if protected species are sighted.
Changes to marine habitatInstallation of infrastructure, such as turbine foundations and transmission cables, introduces new structures and causes changes to the ocean floor that can alter marine habitat and affect the distribution, abundance, and composition of marine life in the area. These new structures can create artificial habitat that may benefit some species while displacing others and could affect bottom-dwelling species through disturbing the seabed. Artificial habitat effects of wind turbines are well documented, but research is ongoing to monitor and understand impacts on marine life.
Hydrodynamic effectsOperation of wind turbines can affect hydrodynamics and ocean processes such as currents and wind wakes, but little is known about regional effects of widescale deployment on ecosystems.
Vessel disturbanceVessels can disturb some species and pose strike risks to large marine animals, but the increase in offshore wind vessels is projected to be small compared to the total volume of vessel traffic. Offshore wind vessels are required to take measures such as following speed restrictions and employing protected species observers.
Entanglement riskStructures, such as mooring cables from floating wind turbines, could snag fishing gear and other marine debris and create entanglement risk to marine animals. Wind projects employ measures to minimize entanglement (e.g., mooring systems designed to detect entanglement), but there is uncertainty about the extent of the risk from floating turbines because of limited deployment.a
Collision risk to birds and batsTurbine blades pose a collision risk to some sea birds, but little is known about offshore collision risk to bats. Research on collision risks and mitigation measures (e.g., lighting and curtailment) is ongoing.

Read Full Post »

Santa Ynez Unit items (thanks to John Smith for the links):

Cuts in carbon capture spending coming? These are cuts that both climate activists and skeptics can support.

In a peer reviewed paper, AI (Grok-3) debunks the man-made climate crisis narrative.

Doug Burgum: Hydraulic fracturing technology is “one of the reasons why the U.S. shale revolution is a miracle. But that miracle keeps on getting better and better. It’s the thing that has literally turned around the economy.” Posted here 15 years ago: Natural Gas Bonanza – Why Aren’t We Celebrating?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »